Category: Trump

  • USAID cuts may cause over 14 million additional deaths by 2030, study says

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Deep funding cuts to the U.S. Agency for International Development and its potential dismantling could result in more than 14 million additional deaths by 2030, according to research published in The Lancet medical journal on Monday.

    WHY IT’S IMPORTANT

    President Donald Trump’s administration, since taking office in January, has made funding cuts to USAID and its aid programs worldwide in what the U.S. government says is part of its broader plan to remove wasteful spending.

    Human rights experts and advocates have warned against the cuts. USAID funding has had a crucial role in improving global health, primarily directed toward low and middle-income countries, particularly African nations, according to the study.

    BY THE NUMBERS

    The study estimated that over the past two decades, USAID-funded programs have prevented more than 91 million deaths globally, including 30 million deaths among children.

    Projections suggest that ongoing deep funding cuts – combined with the potential dismantling of the agency – could result in more than 14 million additional deaths by 2030, including 4.5 million deaths among children younger than 5 years, the study in The Lancet said.

    Washington is the world’s largest humanitarian aid donor, amounting to at least 38% of all contributions recorded by the United Nations. It disbursed $61 billion in foreign assistance last year, just over half of it via USAID, according to government data.

    KEY QUOTE

    “Our estimates show that, unless the abrupt funding cuts announced and implemented in the first half of 2025 are reversed, a staggering number of avoidable deaths could occur by 2030,” the study said.

    CONTEXT

    U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in March the Trump administration canceled over 80% of all programs at USAID following a six-week review.

    The remaining approximately 1,000 programs, he said, would now be administered “more effectively” under the U.S. State Department and in consultation with Congress.

    (Reuters)

  • Iran-linked hackers threaten to release Trump aides’ emails

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Iran-linked hackers have threatened to disclose more emails stolen from U.S. President Donald Trump’s circle, after distributing a prior batch to the media ahead of the 2024 U.S. election.

    In online chats with Reuters on Sunday and Monday, the hackers, who go by the pseudonym Robert, said they had roughly 100 gigabytes of emails from the accounts of White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, Trump lawyer Lindsey Halligan, Trump adviser Roger Stone and porn star-turned-Trump antagonist Stormy Daniels.

    Robert raised the possibility of selling the material but otherwise did not provide details of their plans. The hackers did not describe the content of the emails.

    U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi described the intrusion as “an unconscionable cyber-attack.”

    The White House and the FBI responded with a statement from FBI Director Kash Patel, who said: “Anyone associated with any kind of breach of national security will be fully investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”

    “This so-called cyber ‘attack’ is nothing more than digital propaganda, and the targets are no coincidence. This is a calculated smear campaign meant to damage President Trump and discredit honorable public servants who serve our country with distinction,” cyberdefense agency CISA said in a post on X.

    Halligan, Stone and a representative for Daniels did not respond to requests for comment. Iran’s mission to the United Nations did not return a message seeking comment. Tehran has in the past denied committing cyberespionage.

    Robert materialized in the final months of the 2024 presidential campaign, when they claimed to have breached the email accounts of several Trump allies, including Wiles.

    The hackers then distributed emails to journalists.

    Reuters previously authenticated some of the leaked material, including an email that appeared to document a financial arrangement between Trump and lawyers representing former presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. – now Trump’s health secretary.

    Other material included Trump campaign communication about Republican office-seekers and discussion of settlement negotiations with Daniels.

    Although the leaked documents did garner some coverage last year, they did not fundamentally alter the presidential race, which Trump won.

    The U.S. Justice Department in a September 2024 indictment alleged that Iran’s Revolutionary Guards ran the Robert hacking operation. In conversations with Reuters, the hackers declined to address the allegation.

    After Trump’s election, Robert told Reuters that no more leaks were planned. As recently as May, the hackers told Reuters, “I am retired, man.” But the group resumed communication after this month’s 12-day air war between Israel and Iran, which was capped by U.S. bombing of Iran’s nuclear sites.

    In messages this week, Robert said they were organizing a sale of stolen emails and wanted Reuters to “broadcast this matter.”

    American Enterprise Institute scholar Frederick Kagan, who has written about Iranian cyberespionage, said Tehran suffered serious damage in the conflict and its spies were likely trying to retaliate in ways that did not draw more U.S. or Israeli action.

    “A default explanation is that everyone’s been ordered to use all the asymmetric stuff that they can that’s not likely to trigger a resumption of major Israeli/U.S. military activity,” he said. “Leaking a bunch more emails is not likely to do that.”

    Despite worries that Tehran could unleash digital havoc, Iran’s hackers took a low profile during the conflict. U.S. cyber officials warned on Monday that American companies and critical infrastructure operators might still be in Tehran’s crosshairs.

    (Reuters)

  • Musk vows to punish lawmakers who back Trump’s spending bill

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Billionaire Elon Musk on Monday renewed his criticism of U.S. President Donald Trump’s sweeping tax-cut and spending bill, vowing to unseat lawmakers who backed it after campaigning on limiting government spending.

    After weeks of relative silence following a feud with Trump over the legislation, Musk rejoined the debate on Saturday as the Senate took up the package, calling it “utterly insane and destructive” in a post on social media platform X.

    On Monday, he ramped up his criticism, saying lawmakers who had campaigned on cutting spending but backed the bill “should hang their heads in shame!”

    “And they will lose their primary next year if it is the last thing I do on this Earth,” Musk said.

    The Tesla and SpaceX CEO called again for a new political party, saying the bill’s massive spending indicated “that we live in a one-party country – the PORKY PIG PARTY!!”

    “Time for a new political party that actually cares about the people,” he wrote.

    Musk’s criticism of the bill has caused a rift in his relationship with Trump, marking a dramatic shift after the tech billionaire spent nearly $300 million on Trump’s re-election campaign and led the administration’s controversial Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a federal cost-cutting initiative.

    Musk, the world’s richest man, has argued that the legislation would greatly increase the national debt and erase the savings he says he has achieved through DOGE.

    It remains unclear how much sway Musk has over Congress or what effect his opinions might have on the bill’s passage. But Republicans have expressed concern that his on-again, off-again feud with Trump could hurt their chances to protect their majority in the 2026 midterm congressional elections.

    The rift has also led to volatility for Tesla, with shares of the company seeing wild price swings that erased approximately $150 billion of its market value, though it has since recovered.

    (Reuters)

  • MIL-OSI China: US stocks extend gains to conclude first half of 2025

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    U.S. stocks continued to climb higher on Monday as signs of progress in trade negotiations buoyed investor sentiment, closing out one of the most volatile first halves in recent years.

    The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 275.50 points, or 0.63 percent, to 44,094.77. The S&P 500 added 31.88 points, or 0.52 percent, to 6,204.95. The Nasdaq Composite Index increased 96.28 points, or 0.47 percent, to 20,369.73.

    Nine of the 11 primary S&P 500 sectors ended higher, with technology and financials leading the advance by rising 0.98 percent and 0.86 percent, respectively. Consumer discretionary and energy lagged behind, falling 0.86 percent and 0.66 percent.

    Monday’s gains came after Canada announced it would withdraw its digital services tax, a move widely seen as an effort to smooth relations with the United States just days after U.S. President Donald Trump declared an end to all trade discussions with Ottawa. The tax, which was set to take effect Monday, would have targeted major tech firms such as Google, Meta, and Amazon.

    Market participants are now looking ahead to the expiration of Trump’s 90-day tariff pause next week. Also on Monday, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said some countries are “negotiating in good faith,” though he warned that tariffs could return to previously announced levels if talks falter.

    Meanwhile, attention turned to the U.S. Senate, where lawmakers began a marathon session to debate amendments to Trump’s proposed 4.5 trillion U.S. dollars tax package. The Congressional Budget Office projected the bill could add 3.3 trillion dollars to the federal deficit over the next ten years.

    Despite the looming tariff deadline and uncertainty surrounding the tax legislation, analysts believe strong equity fundamentals and broader market participation could sustain the recent rally. Terry Sandven, chief equity strategist at U.S. Bank Wealth Management, noted that improving breadth supports the view that gains may continue into the second half of the year.

    “While the market has had much to digest the first six months of 2025, resiliency has prevailed,” Leslie Falconio, head of taxable fixed income strategy at UBS Financial Services, wrote last Friday. “However, we are not out of the woods just yet, as bouts of volatility and pockets of vulnerability are expected in the second half of the year.”

    Among individual movers, Apple surged 2.03 percent after Bloomberg reported the company may integrate AI technology from OpenAI or Anthropic into its Siri voice assistant. Broadcom rose 2.34 percent, while Nvidia, Microsoft, and Meta Platforms posted modest gains. On the downside, Amazon and Tesla fell nearly 2 percent, and Alphabet declined 0.49 percent. 

    MIL OSI China News

  • MIL-Evening Report: ER Report: A Roundup of Significant Articles on EveningReport.nz for July 1, 2025

    ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on July 1, 2025.

    Trauma is carried in your DNA. But science reveals a more complicated story
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tara-Lyn Camilleri, Postdoctoral researcher of transgenerational effects, Monash University Radu Bercan/Shutterstock As war continues to rage in Gaza and Ukraine, there is concern about how the related trauma might be transmitted to future generations of people in those regions. More generally, interest in the idea of transgenerational

    Aamir Khan’s big screen comeback, Sitaare Zameen Par, features an all-star neurodivergent cast – a Bollywood first
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Yanyan Hong, PhD Candidate in Communication, Media and Film Studies, University of Adelaide Bharti Dubey/X Bollywood star Aamir Khan’s return to the big screen after a three-year hiatus has been far from ordinary. Sitaare Zameen Par (2025) which translates to “stars on Earth”, is the first major

    The rising rate of type 2 diabetes in young New Zealanders is becoming a health crisis
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lynne Chepulis, Associate Professor, Health Sciences, University of Waikato vadimguzhva/Getty Images No longer just a condition of middle age, type 2 diabetes is increasingly affecting children, teenagers and young adults in New Zealand. And our health system is nowhere near ready to manage this surge. Type 2

    Understanding the ‘Slopocene’: how the failures of AI can reveal its inner workings
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Daniel Binns, Senior Lecturer, Media & Communication, RMIT University AI-generated with Leonardo Phoenix 1.0. Author supplied Some say it’s em dashes, dodgy apostrophes, or too many emoji. Others suggest that maybe the word “delve” is a chatbot’s calling card. It’s no longer the sight of morphed bodies

    Trump’s worldview is causing a global shift of alliances – what does this mean for nations in the middle?
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dilnoza Ubaydullaeva, Lecturer in Government – National Security College, Australian National University Since US President Donald Trump took office this year, one theme has come up time and again: his rule is a threat to the US-led international order. As the US political scientist John Mearsheimer famously

    We have drugs to manage HIV. So why are we spending millions looking for cures?
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bridget Haire, Associate Professor, Public Health Ethics, School of Population Health, UNSW Sydney Alim Yakubov/Shutterstock Over the past three decades there have been amazing advances in treating and preventing HIV. It’s now a manageable infection. A person with HIV who takes HIV medicine consistently, before their immune

    Sexy K-pop demons, a human lie detector and shearers on strike: what to watch in July
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Mickel, Adjunct Associate Professor, School of Justice, Queensland University of Technology Tomorrow marks exactly halfway through 2025. Luckily there’s a suite of streaming options to help get you through the mid-year bump. We’ve got iconic classics celebrating major anniversaries, as well as an animated K-Pop spectacle,

    Fiji human rights coalition challenges Rabuka over decolonisation ‘unfinished business’
    Asia Pacific Report The NGO Coalition on Human Rights in Fiji (NGOCHR) has called on Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka as the new chair of the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) to “uphold justice, stability and security” for Kanaky New Caledonia and West Papua. In a statement today after last week’s MSG leaders’ summit in Suva, the

    Battle of Ideas: Political Lawfare and the Destitution of Pedro Castillo
    Source: Council on Hemispheric Affairs – Analysis-Reportage COHA On June 29, Radio Negro Primero, a community-based station in Venezuela, and affiliates, will examine the jailing and prosecution of Peru’s constitutional president, Pedro Castillo. The program, Battle of Ideas, hosted by William Camacaro (Senior Analyst for COHA) and Mary Dugarte (Venezuelan Journalist), will feature distinguished panelists:

    In Struggle and Solidarity: The Enduring Legacy of Joaquín Domínguez Parada
    Source: Council on Hemispheric Affairs – Analysis-Reportage By Fred Mills and Evelyn Gonzalez Mills Silver Spring, MD Joaquín Domínguez Parada, a renowned Salvadoran attorney and tireless advocate for refugees of war and persecution, passed away on Thursday, June 26, 2025, four days after his 77th birthday in El Salvador, leaving a legacy of love, integrity,

    Here’s how First Nations landholders can share the benefits of the NSW energy transition
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Heidi Norman, Professor of Australian and Aboriginal history, Faculty of Arts, Design and Architecture, Convenor: Indigenous Land & Justice Research Group, UNSW Sydney Hay Local Aboriginal Land Council staff and members with researchers and actuaries from Finity Consulting. UNSW Indigenous Land and Justice Research Group The shift

    Warmer seas are fuelling the dangerous ‘weather bomb’ about to hit NSW
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Steve Turton, Adjunct Professor of Environmental Geography, CQUniversity Australia Heavy surf and intense rains hit Sydney beaches during a 2020 East Coast Low. Lee Hulsman/Getty Right now, a severe storm likely to be the first significant east coast low in three years is developing off the coast

    ‘I’m just exhausted’: sexual harassment at work is still rife. These new laws would help
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sarah Ailwood, Associate Professor, School of Law, University of Wollongong FG Trade/Getty Last week, the Australian Human Rights Commission launched a new report on sexual harassment, called Speaking From Experience. It includes the voices of more than 300 victim-survivors of workplace sexual harassment from vulnerable communities. In

    My shins hurt after running. Could it be shin splints?
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Krissy Kendall, Senior Lecturer in Exercise and Sports Science, Edith Cowan University lzf/Getty If you’ve started running for the first time, started again after a break, or your workout is more intense, you might have felt it. A dull, nagging ache down your shins after you exercise.

    Australia’s cutest mammal is now Australia’s cutest three mammals
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cameron Dodd, PhD Student in Evolutionary Biology and Taxonomy, The University of Western Australia The long-eared kultarr (_A. auritus_) is the middle child in terms of body size, but it has by far the biggest ears. Ken Johnson Australia is home to more than 60 species of

    Occupational therapists tackle obstacles in the home, from support to cook a meal, to navigating public transport
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Danielle Hitch, Senior Lecturer in Occupational Therapy, Deakin University Occupational therapists (OTs) have been in the spotlight this month after the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) froze NDIS payments for these services at $193.99 per hour for the sixth year. The NDIA also cut travel payments for

    Do you have Bitcoin? Be aware of the tax consequences of selling your investment
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christina Allen, Senior lecturer, Curtin University Bitcoin is ubiquitous. It is impossible to open a social media stream or news source without encountering yet another mention of the topic. Many Australians have invested, hoping for a good return. But they may not have considered the tax consequences

    On her new album, Lorde creates pop at its purest – performative, playful and alive to paradox
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rosemary Overell, Senior Lecturer in Communication Studies, University of Otago “✏️Describe the vibe” goes the demand to commenters underneath the YouTube video for Lorde’s latest single, “Hammer”. Fans form a flow; a “vibe check” in Zillenial parlance: The pure rawness … (@lynmariegm) A more raw true-to-self form

    Men traded wares – but women traded knowledge: what a new archeological study tells us about PNG sea trade
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robert Skelly, Archaeologist, Monash University Women loading pots on a Motu lakatoi trading vessel, in this photograph published in 1887. J. W. Lindt Australia’s closest neighbour, Papua New Guinea, is a place of remarkable cultural diversity. Home to cultures speaking more than 800 languages, this region has

    Unsafe and unethical: bed shortages mean dementia patients with psychiatric symptoms are admitted to medical wards
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cindy Towns, Senior Lecturer in General Medicine and Geriatrics, University of Otago Getty Images New Zealand’s mental health crisis is well documented in the government’s 2018 inquiry, He Ara Oranga, which shows one in five people experience mental illness or significant mental distress. However, an almost singular

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-Evening Report: ER Report: A Roundup of Significant Articles on EveningReport.nz for July 1, 2025

    ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on July 1, 2025.

    Trauma is carried in your DNA. But science reveals a more complicated story
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tara-Lyn Camilleri, Postdoctoral researcher of transgenerational effects, Monash University Radu Bercan/Shutterstock As war continues to rage in Gaza and Ukraine, there is concern about how the related trauma might be transmitted to future generations of people in those regions. More generally, interest in the idea of transgenerational

    Aamir Khan’s big screen comeback, Sitaare Zameen Par, features an all-star neurodivergent cast – a Bollywood first
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Yanyan Hong, PhD Candidate in Communication, Media and Film Studies, University of Adelaide Bharti Dubey/X Bollywood star Aamir Khan’s return to the big screen after a three-year hiatus has been far from ordinary. Sitaare Zameen Par (2025) which translates to “stars on Earth”, is the first major

    The rising rate of type 2 diabetes in young New Zealanders is becoming a health crisis
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lynne Chepulis, Associate Professor, Health Sciences, University of Waikato vadimguzhva/Getty Images No longer just a condition of middle age, type 2 diabetes is increasingly affecting children, teenagers and young adults in New Zealand. And our health system is nowhere near ready to manage this surge. Type 2

    Understanding the ‘Slopocene’: how the failures of AI can reveal its inner workings
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Daniel Binns, Senior Lecturer, Media & Communication, RMIT University AI-generated with Leonardo Phoenix 1.0. Author supplied Some say it’s em dashes, dodgy apostrophes, or too many emoji. Others suggest that maybe the word “delve” is a chatbot’s calling card. It’s no longer the sight of morphed bodies

    Trump’s worldview is causing a global shift of alliances – what does this mean for nations in the middle?
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dilnoza Ubaydullaeva, Lecturer in Government – National Security College, Australian National University Since US President Donald Trump took office this year, one theme has come up time and again: his rule is a threat to the US-led international order. As the US political scientist John Mearsheimer famously

    We have drugs to manage HIV. So why are we spending millions looking for cures?
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bridget Haire, Associate Professor, Public Health Ethics, School of Population Health, UNSW Sydney Alim Yakubov/Shutterstock Over the past three decades there have been amazing advances in treating and preventing HIV. It’s now a manageable infection. A person with HIV who takes HIV medicine consistently, before their immune

    Sexy K-pop demons, a human lie detector and shearers on strike: what to watch in July
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Mickel, Adjunct Associate Professor, School of Justice, Queensland University of Technology Tomorrow marks exactly halfway through 2025. Luckily there’s a suite of streaming options to help get you through the mid-year bump. We’ve got iconic classics celebrating major anniversaries, as well as an animated K-Pop spectacle,

    Fiji human rights coalition challenges Rabuka over decolonisation ‘unfinished business’
    Asia Pacific Report The NGO Coalition on Human Rights in Fiji (NGOCHR) has called on Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka as the new chair of the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) to “uphold justice, stability and security” for Kanaky New Caledonia and West Papua. In a statement today after last week’s MSG leaders’ summit in Suva, the

    Battle of Ideas: Political Lawfare and the Destitution of Pedro Castillo
    Source: Council on Hemispheric Affairs – Analysis-Reportage COHA On June 29, Radio Negro Primero, a community-based station in Venezuela, and affiliates, will examine the jailing and prosecution of Peru’s constitutional president, Pedro Castillo. The program, Battle of Ideas, hosted by William Camacaro (Senior Analyst for COHA) and Mary Dugarte (Venezuelan Journalist), will feature distinguished panelists:

    In Struggle and Solidarity: The Enduring Legacy of Joaquín Domínguez Parada
    Source: Council on Hemispheric Affairs – Analysis-Reportage By Fred Mills and Evelyn Gonzalez Mills Silver Spring, MD Joaquín Domínguez Parada, a renowned Salvadoran attorney and tireless advocate for refugees of war and persecution, passed away on Thursday, June 26, 2025, four days after his 77th birthday in El Salvador, leaving a legacy of love, integrity,

    Here’s how First Nations landholders can share the benefits of the NSW energy transition
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Heidi Norman, Professor of Australian and Aboriginal history, Faculty of Arts, Design and Architecture, Convenor: Indigenous Land & Justice Research Group, UNSW Sydney Hay Local Aboriginal Land Council staff and members with researchers and actuaries from Finity Consulting. UNSW Indigenous Land and Justice Research Group The shift

    Warmer seas are fuelling the dangerous ‘weather bomb’ about to hit NSW
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Steve Turton, Adjunct Professor of Environmental Geography, CQUniversity Australia Heavy surf and intense rains hit Sydney beaches during a 2020 East Coast Low. Lee Hulsman/Getty Right now, a severe storm likely to be the first significant east coast low in three years is developing off the coast

    ‘I’m just exhausted’: sexual harassment at work is still rife. These new laws would help
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sarah Ailwood, Associate Professor, School of Law, University of Wollongong FG Trade/Getty Last week, the Australian Human Rights Commission launched a new report on sexual harassment, called Speaking From Experience. It includes the voices of more than 300 victim-survivors of workplace sexual harassment from vulnerable communities. In

    My shins hurt after running. Could it be shin splints?
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Krissy Kendall, Senior Lecturer in Exercise and Sports Science, Edith Cowan University lzf/Getty If you’ve started running for the first time, started again after a break, or your workout is more intense, you might have felt it. A dull, nagging ache down your shins after you exercise.

    Australia’s cutest mammal is now Australia’s cutest three mammals
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cameron Dodd, PhD Student in Evolutionary Biology and Taxonomy, The University of Western Australia The long-eared kultarr (_A. auritus_) is the middle child in terms of body size, but it has by far the biggest ears. Ken Johnson Australia is home to more than 60 species of

    Occupational therapists tackle obstacles in the home, from support to cook a meal, to navigating public transport
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Danielle Hitch, Senior Lecturer in Occupational Therapy, Deakin University Occupational therapists (OTs) have been in the spotlight this month after the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) froze NDIS payments for these services at $193.99 per hour for the sixth year. The NDIA also cut travel payments for

    Do you have Bitcoin? Be aware of the tax consequences of selling your investment
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christina Allen, Senior lecturer, Curtin University Bitcoin is ubiquitous. It is impossible to open a social media stream or news source without encountering yet another mention of the topic. Many Australians have invested, hoping for a good return. But they may not have considered the tax consequences

    On her new album, Lorde creates pop at its purest – performative, playful and alive to paradox
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rosemary Overell, Senior Lecturer in Communication Studies, University of Otago “✏️Describe the vibe” goes the demand to commenters underneath the YouTube video for Lorde’s latest single, “Hammer”. Fans form a flow; a “vibe check” in Zillenial parlance: The pure rawness … (@lynmariegm) A more raw true-to-self form

    Men traded wares – but women traded knowledge: what a new archeological study tells us about PNG sea trade
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robert Skelly, Archaeologist, Monash University Women loading pots on a Motu lakatoi trading vessel, in this photograph published in 1887. J. W. Lindt Australia’s closest neighbour, Papua New Guinea, is a place of remarkable cultural diversity. Home to cultures speaking more than 800 languages, this region has

    Unsafe and unethical: bed shortages mean dementia patients with psychiatric symptoms are admitted to medical wards
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cindy Towns, Senior Lecturer in General Medicine and Geriatrics, University of Otago Getty Images New Zealand’s mental health crisis is well documented in the government’s 2018 inquiry, He Ara Oranga, which shows one in five people experience mental illness or significant mental distress. However, an almost singular

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI China: Trump signs order ending most sanctions on Syria

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    A shopkeeper communicates with customers at his stall in a bustling market ahead of the Eid al-Adha in Damascus, Syria, on June 5, 2025. [Photo/Xinhua]

    U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday signed an executive order terminating most sanctions on Syria, the White House said in a fact sheet.

    “The Order removes sanctions on Syria while maintaining sanctions on (ousted former Syrian president) Bashar al-Assad… The Order permits the relaxation of export controls on certain goods and waives restrictions on certain foreign assistance to Syria,” said the White House.

    Following the order, five executive orders that created the existing Syria sanctions program were immediately terminated, while the State Department issued a 180-day waiver of sanctions under the Caesar Act.

    The U.S. Treasury Department already took the first step in lifting sanctions on Syria by issuing a general license, known as GL25, to authorize transactions involving the interim Syrian government, its central bank and state-owned enterprises.

    Sanctions on Assad, his associates, human rights abusers, drug traffickers, persons linked to chemical weapons activities, ISIS and their affiliates and Iranian proxies will remain in place, according to White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt.

    Under the order, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is directed to “explore avenues for sanctions relief at the United Nations.”

    Rubio is also directed to review the designations of Syria as a “State On the eighth of December 2024, of Terrorism,” Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) as a foreign terrorist organization, and its leader, Syrian interim chief Ahmed al-Sharaa, as a “Specially Designated Global Terrorist.”

    The Trump administration will “continue to monitor progress on key priorities” including steps toward normalizing ties with Israel and helping the United States prevent a resurgence of ISIS, according to the White House.

    Amid the upheaval in the Middle East, Trump told al-Sharaa in Saudi Arabia in May that the United States would lift sanctions and explore normalizing relations as a major policy shift.

    The 54-year Assad’s rule over Syria abruptly ended on Dec. 8, 2024, and days afterward, leaders of HTS, the primary force behind the offensive during Syria’s prolonged 13-year war, formed an interim government. Since then, the new government has scrambled to restore order, rebuild institutions, and reach out to regional and global partners.

    MIL OSI China News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Hagerty, 18 Senate Colleagues Reintroduce Legislation to End Counting of Illegal Immigrants in Determining Electoral College Votes and Congressional District Apportionment

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Tennessee Bill Hagerty

    Counting illegal immigrants’ voting power encourages illegal immigration and destroys equal representation by making some citizens’ votes more powerful than others

    WASHINGTON—Today, United States Senator Bill Hagerty (R-TN), a member of the Senate Rules Committee, led his colleagues in reintroducing the Equal Representation Act, legislation to ensure that only legal citizens are factored into the count for Congressional districts and the Electoral College map that determines presidential elections. The current method of counting illegal immigrants for purposes of representation serves as a perverse incentive for open borders to boost the relative political power of the states and voters that court it.

    Currently, illegal immigrants are counted for congressional district apportionment and, therefore, Electoral College votes. For example, in a state like California, millions of illegal alien residents result in California taking several more congressional seats and Electoral College votes than the states’ population of citizens would justify. In other words, being a magnet for illegal immigration increases the power of a Californian’s vote relative to an individual in another state with less population boost from illegal immigration. This creates a perverse incentive encouraging illegal immigration and resettlement to increase political power.

    Co-sponsors of the legislation include Senators Katie Britt (R-AL), Ted Budd (R-NC), Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Steve Daines (R-MT), John Hoeven (R-ND), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Jim Justice (R-WV), James Lankford (R-OK), Mike Lee (R-UT), Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), Roger Marshall (R-KS), Pete Ricketts (R-NE), Jim Risch (R-ID), Eric Schmitt (R-MO), Rick Scott (R-FL), Tim Sheehy (R-MT), and Tommy Tuberville (R-AL).

    “It is unconscionable that illegal immigrants and non-citizens are counted toward congressional district apportionment and our electoral map for the presidency, which also heavily skews the seat count in the U.S. House of Representatives,” said Senator Hagerty. “While people continue to flee Democrat-run cities, desperate Democrats have back-filled the mass exodus with illegal immigrants so that they do not lose their seats in Congress or their electoral votes, hence artificially boosting their political power and in turn diluting the power of other Americans’ votes. I’m pleased to lead my colleagues in reintroducing this legislation that would require a citizenship question on the census and will ensure that only citizens are counted in congressional redistricting.”

    “Every ten years when the census is conducted, it’s imperative that only U.S. citizens are included in the count to determine the apportionment of congressional seats and allocation of Electoral College votes,” said Senator Britt. “Counting illegal aliens for these critical purposes only rewards reckless jurisdictions for supporting open borders and sanctuary policies. The Equal Representation Act is a straightforward and commonsense measure to uphold fundamental fairness, and I’m proud to cosponsor it.”

    “For years, Democrat-run sanctuary cities and states have used millions of illegal aliens to grow their political influence,” said Senator Budd. “Their actions have stripped power away from American citizens who deserve to have their voices and votes equally accounted for. Illegal aliens have no place dictating the congressional seats or Electoral College votes a state receives.”

    “The Census is the foundation for representation in our political system, and any census that could include non-citizens in the apportionment count is really concerning to me, and it ought to be to all North Dakotans,” said Senator Cramer. “Illegal immigrants and non-citizens cannot vote and should not be used as pawns as the Democrats redistrict in various states. Our Census has to count both Americans and non-Americans but should also distinguish between them.”

    “Only U.S. citizens should be included in Census Bureau counts to apportion congressional and Electoral College representation,” said Senator Crapo. “This vital reform would prevent states like California and New York from padding their population totals with those here illegally to tip the scales and boost their political power in Washington, D.C.”

    “The law is clear- illegal immigrants are not citizens of the United States and should not be counted as such,” said Senator Daines. “This bill is a commonsense measure to prohibit illegal immigrants from being counted in censuses, so that sanctuary cities can’t exploit the electoral college and taxpayer resources.” 

    “The Biden Administration’s open border policies have created the worst border crisis in history,” said Senator Johnson. “This bill ensures that congressional seats are apportioned based solely on U.S. citizens, protecting the integrity of our democratic system. Americans deserve to have their voices fully represented in Congress, not diluted by those who entered the country illegally.”

    “This is just commonsense,” said Senator Justice. “Absolutely no one who is in this country illegally should be counted when it comes to Congressional seats or Electoral College votes. Representation should be decided by American citizens-period. I am proud to support the Equal Representation Act to protect the integrity of our elections and to ensure every legal vote is counted equally.”

    “Only American citizens should count toward the apportionment of congressional seats and Electoral College votes,” said Senator Lummis. “Under current law, states harboring large illegal alien populations get extra representation and power at the expense of law-abiding states like Wyoming. This bill protects a fair electoral process and prevents Democrat-led states from ignoring federal immigration laws.”

    “The Equal Representation Act stands for a simple proposition: Americans should decide American elections,” said Senator Marshall. “States like California and New York should not be able to inflate their votes in the Electoral College—and in Congress—by counting non-citizens in the Census. I’m proud to support this bill to ensure that every vote in the Electoral College and Congress reflects the voices of American citizens only.”

    “Since 1820, the federal government has routinely utilized the Census to ask questions about citizenship status,” said Senator Ricketts. “This current policy rewards sanctuary cities and sanctuary states with outsized population because it’s counting people who came here illegally. Those people broke the law and must not be counted for representation. It’s fundamentally unfair to Nebraskans, or citizens in states who are following the law, to reward folks in states who are breaking the law. Only citizens can vote in elections and that’s the way it needs to remain.”

    “Democrats are undermining the rights of U.S. citizens by encouraging illegal immigrants to enter our country and skew congressional redistricting for political gain,” said Senator Risch. “The Equal Representation Act requires that the Census Bureau include a citizenship question ensuring American values and voices take priority.”

    “American elections should be determined by American citizens and American citizens alone,” said Senator Schmitt. “Voting is the foundation of our democracy, giving U.S. citizens a voice in shaping our future. I am proud to join this bill to protect Americans’ vote and keep our elections secure.”

    “Illegal aliens shouldn’t be allowed to break the law and be rewarded with taxpayer-funded benefits, and states that shelter them shouldn’t gain increased influence in Washington as a result,” said Senator Rick Scott. “Since illegal aliens are currently counted in the census, states like California receive disproportionate representation in the Electoral College and the House of Representatives. By restoring the census to its pre-2000 standard and including a citizenship question, this bill ensures that states like California don’t gain an unfair advantage over states like Florida, and that every citizen’s vote carries equal weight.”

    “Illegal aliens have no right to congressional representation in this country, and they have no right to determine who our elected leaders are,” said Senator Tuberville. “The balance of power shouldn’t be weighed down by people who aren’t citizens of this country. Counting illegals in the Electoral College and congressional districts can completely alter the outcome of our elections. Thankfully, President Trump and his administration are deporting illegals in droves. I’m proud to join Senator Hagerty in reintroducing the Equal Representation Act so that ONLY Americans determine our elected leaders.”

    The Equal Representation Act:

    • Requires that the Census Bureau include a citizenship question on any future census to provide a greater understanding of the U.S. population and delineate between citizens and non-citizens for apportionment purposes;
    • Prohibits non-citizens from being counted for purposes of congressional district and Electoral College apportionment; and
    • Requires that the Census Bureau publicly report on certain demographic data.

    Background:

    • In January 2024, Hagerty led his Senate Republican colleagues in introducing the Equal Representation Act.
    • In March 2024, every single Senate Democrat voted against Hagerty’s legislation as an amendment to appropriations bills, which put them on the record siding with illegal aliens over American citizens.
    • The House of Representatives passed the Equal Representation Act on May 8, 2024.
    • Following House passage, Senate Democrats once again blocked Hagerty’s legislation.
    • In a hearing, former Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo admitted to Hagerty that higher local illegal alien populations equal more Congressional seats and Electoral Votes.

    Full text of the legislation can be found here.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: TODAY: Governor Newsom to sign historic bills to create more housing and infrastructure – faster than ever before

    Source: US State of California Governor

    Jun 30, 2025

    SACRAMENTO COUNTY — Governor Gavin Newsom will be joined by Senate President pro Tempore Mike McGuire, Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, other legislative leaders, and advocates to sign a landmark budget bill package that cuts red tape, fast-tracks housing and infrastructure, and improves affordability for all Californians.

    WHEN: Monday, June 30, at approximately 6:45 p.m.

    LIVESTREAM:  Governor’s Twitter page, Governor’s Facebook page, and the Governor’s YouTube page. This event will also be available to TV stations on the LiveU Matrix under “California Governor.”

    NOTE: This in-person press event will be open to credentialed media only. Media interested in attending must RSVP by clicking here no later than 6:35 p.m., June 30. Location information will be provided upon confirmation.

    Recent news

    News What you need to know: As President Trump’s illegal militarization of Los Angeles continues to hamstring crucial firefighting resources in California, new reporting indicates top military officials are asking the Secretary of Defense to return troops to…

    News What you need to know: Governor Newsom is issuing an extension to his executive order making it easier for survivors of the LA firestorms to retain temporary shelter. The order helps continue to boost temporary housing supply by extending the amount of time…

    News What you need to know: Californians are urged to practice common sense and safety when using fireworks to celebrate this Fourth of July. People who resort to using illegal fireworks will be held accountable. SACRAMENTO – With Fourth of July celebrations set to go…

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Security: Thanks to President Trump’s Trade Policies, DHS Announces Over $100 Billion in Customs Revenue

    Source: US Department of Homeland Security

    CBP swiftly implemented the President’s agenda that is making America more prosperous and safer

    WASHINGTON — Today, the Department of Homeland Security announced that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has collected $106.1 billion since President Trump took office. Most of this revenue, $81.5 billion, is a result of the Trump Administration’s tariffs. 

    DHS and CBP are working every day to ensure customs duties and tariffs are collected in full, reaching an above 99.5% success rate. Since the beginning of the Trump Administration, CBP took enforcement action to secure $16.3 billion in additional revenue because of targeted reviews of over 35,000 shipments flagged as high-risk for duty evasion or subject to additional payments owed. 

    “DHS and CBP are successfully implementing President Trump’s historic America First trade agenda,” said a Senior DHS official.We are proud to help President Trump make America richer and reverse a broken trade system that resulted in millions of jobs shipped overseas and made us dependent on foreign adversaries for essential goods. This administration will always put the American first.”

    ###

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI China: Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill reveals divisions in Washington

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    This photo taken on Jan. 19, 2023 shows the U.S. Capitol building in Washington, D.C., the United States. [Photo/Xinhua]

    A marathon vote was underway Monday over U.S. President Donald Trump’s massive One Big Beautiful Bill, which highlights bitter partisan divisions in Washington.

    Trump said the bill will deliver the largest tax cut for working- and middle-class Americans in history and will “unleash our economy.”

    The bill contains a slew of tax cuts for businesses and families and will “turbo-charge our economy and bring back the American dream,” Trump said in a speech promoting the legislation.

    However, Democrats are vehemently opposed to the mega-bill, which, if passed, will fund Trump’s agenda and stand in stark contrast to what Democrats want for the country.

    Democrats blast Trump’s tax cuts as benefiting the wealthy, although Republicans maintain the cuts will help the middle class.

    The bill has angered Democrats for what that party says are cuts to essential programs such as Medicaid — health care coverage for low-income people — as well as food stamps.

    Democrats and a couple of Republicans also fret the bill will add trillions of U.S. dollars to the surging national debt.

    Christopher Galdieri, a political science professor at Saint Anselm College in the northeastern state of New Hampshire, told Xinhua the legislation is “essentially a mega-bill combining most of Trump’s legislative ambitions into one package — tax cuts, spending cuts, massively increasing the budget for ICE, and more.”

    The bill could provide additional funds for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to boost the number of agents and to provide pay bonuses.

    ICE is in large part carrying out Trump’s mass deportation of millions of people who entered the United States illegally during the previous administration. But Democrats blast the deportations as heavy-handed, inhumane and unconstitutional.

    Republicans argue that those funds for ICE are needed to reverse the damage they said Democrats did to the United States during the previous administration.

    The GOP accuses Democrats of purposely opening the floodgates to millions of immigrants to illegally enter the United States, in what the GOP labeled an “invasion” and a result of Democrats’ “radical left” agenda during the previous administration.

    The White House also argues that among those who have illegally entered are many criminals and gang members.

    Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on Saturday criticized the bill, accusing Republicans of trying to dupe the American people and saying “most people hate this bill.”

    Some Republicans have also criticized the bill.

    GOP Senator Josh Hawley has raised concerns about cuts to Medicaid, saying the reductions are “morally wrong and politically suicidal.”

    But on Saturday, Hawley changed his tune and announced he would back the bill.

    Republican Senator Rand Paul blasted the bill for what he said was adding to the debt, labeling it “much more of a spending bill than a bill that rectifies the debt problem.”

    Paul has specifically lambasted the bill for what he said was adding to the national deficit by around 2.4 trillion U.S. dollars over a decade.

    GOP Senator Thom Tillis criticized the bill on Saturday, saying: “It is inescapable this bill will betray the promise that Donald Trump made.”

    The senator denounced proposed cuts to Medicaid and lambasted the “amateurs” advising Trump, who he said have “no insight into how these… Tax cuts are going to be absorbed without harming people on Medicare.”

    Clay Ramsay, a researcher at the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland, told Xinhua: “The core of the partisan divisions is that Medicaid recipients, which are a quite significant portion of each legislator’s constituents, are going to either suffer cutoffs or will have to spend a lot of time and energy to avoid that happening.”

    Republicans argue that the bill’s tax cuts will stimulate the economy.

    Dean Baker, a senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, told Xinhua: “There will be little net effect. The biggest effect is likely to be contractionary from the (tariffs).”

    MIL OSI China News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Senator Marshall: If You Support President Trump, You Should Support This Bill

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Kansas Roger Marshall

    Senator Marshall Joins Fox News to Discuss The Republican Reconciliation Bill
    Washington – On Monday, U.S. Senator Roger Marshall, M.D. (R-Kansas), joined Lawrence Jones on Fox News’ The Will Cain Show to discuss the current state of the Republican reconciliation bill and how it will strengthen and preserve Medicaid.

    Click HERE or on the image above to watch Senator Marshall’s full remarks.
    On what the reconciliation bill will do:
    “We just got to get this bill across the floor here. This is the start of a new golden era for Americans. This is President Trump’s agenda being laid out. This is going to fund President Trump’s agenda. If you supported President Trump, you should support this bill. It’s going to secure the border, it’s going to lower your taxes by $1,000 a month – we all need to rally behind it.”
    On how the reconciliation bill will strengthen Medicaid:
    “I disagree with him [Senator Thom Tillis], respectfully disagree. This bill is going to strengthen Medicaid. We’re going to strengthen it for those who need it the most. We protect it for seniors in nursing homes, people with disabilities, pregnant women – those types of folks. So, we protect it for them.
    “And then for rural America, we’re going to have a special stabilization fund as well. There’s going to be work requirements, so as long as you’re willing to work 20 hours a week, and by the way, there are people back home harvesting wheat today that are working 20 hours a day. So, if you lose Medicaid, it’s on you. But we want to help people get jobs. I think this will strengthen Medicaid. I think overall, this is a step back in the right direction to Make America Healthy Again.”
    On how work requirements can strengthen Medicaid:
    “.. A couple of points I just have to make Lawrence – you know, number one is there 7 million healthy American men out there, working age, that are not working, I’d love to help them find a job.
    “Second point is this, we’re actually increasing funding for Medicaid. We’re increasing funding for Medicaid higher than the rate of inflation. We’re going to increase it to the tune of $200 billion a year when this is all said and done. So, when they talk about people not being on Medicaid anymore, half of those people are on it because of fraud or some type of abuse of the system.
    “The other half is because they’re unwilling to work 20 hours a week. And you can volunteer, you can go to school. We want to help you find a job – a job brings dignity. It brings purpose. We’re all about people finding a great way to live that American Dream that President Trump talks about.”

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Markey, Cantwell File Amendment to Strip 5-Year AI Moratorium from GOP Reconciliation Bill as Opposition to Blackburn-Cruz “Compromise” Grows

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Massachusetts Ed Markey
    Washington (June 30, 2025) – As opposition to the new Blackburn-Cruz five-year AI moratorium “compromise” continues to grow, Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and Senator Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation filed an amendment to strip the entire provision from the Republican budget reconciliation bill.
    “The Blackburn-Cruz so-called compromise is a wolf in sheep’s clothing,” said Senator Edward J. Markey. “Despite Republican efforts to hide the true impact of the AI moratorium, the language still allows the Trump administration to use federal broadband funding as a weapon against the states and still prevents states from protecting children online from Big Tech’s predatory behavior. Republicans are selling out our kids and local communities — all to line the pockets of Big Tech billionaires. I am proud to partner with Ranking Member Cantwell on an amendment to strip this dangerous language.”
    “The Blackburn-Cruz amendment does nothing to protect kids or consumers,” Sen. Cantwell said earlier today. “It’s just another giveaway to tech companies. This provision gives AI and social media a brand-new shield against litigation and state regulation. This is Section 230 on steroids. And when Howard Lutnick has the authority to force states to take this deal or lose all of their BEAD funding, consumers will find out just how catastrophic this deal is.”
    While the “compromise” language adds child safety and other “generally applicable laws” to its list of purported exemptions, the standard is so vague that Big Tech companies would challenge nearly every consumer protection, kids online safety or privacy protection law in court as “overly burdensome.” It would also impact the thousands of pending lawsuits against social media companies’ harmful algorithms.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Sen. Markey, Rep. Titus Announce Legislation to Advance LGBTQ+ Rights Globally

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Massachusetts Ed Markey

    Bill Text (PDF)

    Washington (June 30, 2025) – Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) today joined Representative Dina Titus (NV-01) to announce the introduction of the Greater Leadership Overseas for the Benefit of Equality (GLOBE) Act, legislation that would reaffirm U.S. leadership in advancing the rights and freedoms of LGBTQ+ individuals around the world.

    “This Pride Month, we must continue to advocate for freedom and equality – regardless of gender identity and sexual orientation – for every person, in the U.S. and around the world,” said Senator Markey. “With bigotry against LGBTQ+ people on the rise, we must push back on discriminatory practices and strive to protect and improve the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals everywhere.”

    “No person should suffer from discrimination because of who they are or whom they love,” said Representative Titus. “Under the Trump Administration, the U.S. is failing to protect the rights of LGBTQI people at home and abroad. This bill will help restore our role in promoting LGBTQI rights around the world and punishing regimes that persecute people based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. Through his executive orders and DEI initiative, President Trump has attacked fundamental human rights and the dignity of the LGBTQI community. The GLOBE Act counters this by outlining a vision for U.S. leadership in the protection of LGBTQI rights globally.”

    The legislation is cosponsored by Senators Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii.).

    Senator Markey previously introduced the GLOBE Act in 2023. Recently, Senator Markey co-sponsored the No Place for LGBTQ+ Hate Act that would push back against the Trump administration’s attempts to target the rights and freedoms of LGBTQ+ individuals nationwide.

    Senator Markey also joined his colleagues in delivering a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, pressing the Trump administration on their retreat from longstanding efforts to promote human rights and democracy worldwide.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Sen. Markey, Rep. Titus Announce Legislation to Advance LGBTQ+ Rights Globally

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Massachusetts Ed Markey

    Bill Text (PDF)

    Washington (June 30, 2025) – Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) today joined Representative Dina Titus (NV-01) to announce the introduction of the Greater Leadership Overseas for the Benefit of Equality (GLOBE) Act, legislation that would reaffirm U.S. leadership in advancing the rights and freedoms of LGBTQ+ individuals around the world.

    “This Pride Month, we must continue to advocate for freedom and equality – regardless of gender identity and sexual orientation – for every person, in the U.S. and around the world,” said Senator Markey. “With bigotry against LGBTQ+ people on the rise, we must push back on discriminatory practices and strive to protect and improve the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals everywhere.”

    “No person should suffer from discrimination because of who they are or whom they love,” said Representative Titus. “Under the Trump Administration, the U.S. is failing to protect the rights of LGBTQI people at home and abroad. This bill will help restore our role in promoting LGBTQI rights around the world and punishing regimes that persecute people based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. Through his executive orders and DEI initiative, President Trump has attacked fundamental human rights and the dignity of the LGBTQI community. The GLOBE Act counters this by outlining a vision for U.S. leadership in the protection of LGBTQI rights globally.”

    The legislation is cosponsored by Senators Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii.).

    Senator Markey previously introduced the GLOBE Act in 2023. Recently, Senator Markey co-sponsored the No Place for LGBTQ+ Hate Act that would push back against the Trump administration’s attempts to target the rights and freedoms of LGBTQ+ individuals nationwide.

    Senator Markey also joined his colleagues in delivering a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, pressing the Trump administration on their retreat from longstanding efforts to promote human rights and democracy worldwide.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Sen. Johnson Releases Statement After Advancing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Wisconsin Ron Johnson
    WASHINGTON – On Saturday, U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) released the following statement after voting in favor of the motion to proceed to Cal. #107, H.R.1, One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
    “Biden and the Democrats left behind enormous messes that we are trying to clean up – an open border, wars, and massive deficits. After working for weeks with President Trump and his highly capable economic team, I am convinced that he views this as a necessary first step and will support my efforts to help put America on a path to fiscal sustainability.”

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Most South African farmers are black: why Trump got it so wrong

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Johann Kirsten, Director of the Bureau for Economic Research, Stellenbosch University

    When world leaders engage, the assumption is always that they engage on issues based on verified facts, which their administrative staff are supposed to prepare. Under this assumption, we thought the meeting at the White House on 21 May between South Africa’s president, Cyril Ramaphosa, and US president Donald Trump would follow this pattern.

    Disappointingly, the televised meeting was horrifying to watch as it was based on misrepresenting the reality of life in South Africa.

    Issues of agriculture, farming and land (and rural crime) were central to the discussions. What is clear to us as agricultural economists is that the skewed views expressed by Trump about these issues originate in South Africa. This includes Trump’s statement: “But Blacks are not farmers.”

    In our work as agricultural economists, we have, in many pieces and books (our latest titled The Uncomfortable Truth about South Africa’s Agriculture), tried to present South Africans with the real facts about the political economy policy reforms and structural dimensions of South African agriculture.

    Writing on these matters was necessary given that official data – agricultural census 2017, as well as the official land audit of 2017 – all provide an incomplete picture of the real state and structure of South African agriculture. The reason is that the agricultural census, which is supposed to provide a comprehensive and inclusive assessment of the size and structure of the primary agricultural sector, and the land audit, which was supposed to record the ownership of all land in South Africa, are incomplete in their coverage.

    The incomplete and inaccurate official data provides fertile ground for radical statements by the left and the right – and novices on social media. This is why South Africa has to deal with falsehoods coming from the US. These include Trump’s statement that black people are not farmers in South Africa.

    South Africa is to blame for providing inaccurate data to feed these false narratives.

    The facts presented here should allow a more nuanced interpretation of South Africa’s farm structure. Firstly, there are more black farmers in South Africa than white farmers. And not all white commercial farm operations are “large-scale”, and not all black farmers are “small-scale”, “subsistence” or “emerging”. Most farm operations can be classified as micro, or small in scale.

    This is important so that one doesn’t view South Africa’s agriculture as mainly white farmers. Indeed, we are a country of two agricultures with black farmers mainly at small scale and accounting for roughly 10% of the commercial agricultural output. Still, this doesn’t mean they are not active in the sector. They mainly still require support to expand and increase output, but they are active.

    The facts

    In the wake of the circus in the Oval Office, we were amazed by the total silence of the many farmers’ organisations in South Africa. We have not seen one coming out to reject all of Trump’s claims. The only thing we can deduce from this is that these falsehoods suit the political position of some farmer organisations. But at what cost? Will many of their members be harmed by trade sanctions or tariffs against South Africa? The US is an important market for South Africa’s agriculture, accounting for 4% of the US$13.7 billion exports in 2024.

    When Ramaphosa highlighted the fact that crime, and rural crime in particular, has an impact on all South Africans and that more black people than white people are being killed, Trump’s response was disturbing, to say the least: “But Blacks are not farmers”. This requires an immediate fact check.

    We returned to the text from our chapter in the Handbook on the South African Economy we jointly prepared in 2021. In the extract below, we discuss the real numbers of farmers in South Africa and try to provide a sensible racial classification of farmers to denounce Trump’s silly statement.

    As highlighted earlier, the two latest agricultural censuses (2007 and 2017) are incomplete as they restricted the sample frame to farm businesses registered to pay value added tax. Only firms with a turnover of one million rands (US$55,500) qualify for VAT registration.

    We were able to expand the findings from the censuses with numbers from the 2011 population census and the 2016 community survey to better understand the total number of commercial farming units in South Africa. The Community Survey 2016 is a large-scale survey that happened between Censuses 2011 and 2021. The main objective was to provide population and household statistics at municipal level to government and the private sector, to support planning and decision-making.

    Data from the 2011 population census (extracted from three agricultural questions included in the census) shows that 2,879,638 households out of South Africa’s total population, or 19.9% of all households, were active in agriculture for subsistence or commercial purposes.

    Only 2% of these active households reported an annual income derived from agriculture above R307,000 (US$17,000). This translates into 57,592 households that can be considered commercial farmers, with agriculture as the main or only source of household income. This corresponds in some way with the 40,122 farming businesses that are registered for VAT as noted in the 2017 agricultural census report.

    If we use the numbers from the agricultural census it is evident almost 90% of all VAT-registered commercial farming businesses could be classified as micro or small-scale enterprises. If the farm businesses excluded from the census are accounted for under the assumption that they are too small for VAT registration, then the fact still stands that the vast majority of all farm enterprises in South Africa are small family farms.

    There are, however, 2,610 large farms (with turnover exceeding R22.5 million (US$1.2 million per annum) which are responsible for 67% of farm income and employed more than half the agricultural labour force of 757,000 farm workers in 2017.

    Another way to get to farm numbers is to use the 2016 Community Survey. Using the shares as shown in Table 2, we estimate there are 242,221 commercial farming households in South Africa, of which only 43,891 (18%) are white commercial farmers. (This is very much in line with the VAT registered farmers but also acknowledging the fact that many white farm businesses are not necessarily registered for VAT.)

    Let’s consider only the agricultural households with agriculture as their main source of income, surveyed in the 2016 community survey. We end up with a total of 132,700 households, of whom 93,000 (70%) are black farmers. This reality is something that policy makers and farm organisations find very difficult to deal with and it seems that Trump also found this too good to be true.

    We have tried here in a long winded way to deal with farm numbers and how to get to a race classification of farmers in South Africa. In the end we trust that we have managed to show that there are more black farmers in South Africa than white farmers. Their share in total output is smaller than that of their white counterparts. The National Agricultural Marketing Council puts black farmers’ share of agricultural production as roughly 10%. But these numbers are also incomplete and largely an undercount.

    It will always be challenging to get to the real number of black farmers’ share of agricultural output as nobody would ever know whether the potato or the cabbage on the shelf came from a farm owned by a black farmer or a white person but operated by a black farmer, for example. As South Africans know, the labour on farms, in pack houses, distribution systems and retail are all black. So, the sweat and hard work of black South African workers are integral to the food supply chain in South Africa.

    Let’s get these facts straight and promote them honestly.

    Wandile Sihlobo is the Chief Economist of the Agricultural Business Chamber of South Africa (Agbiz) and a member of the Presidential Economic Advisory Council (PEAC).

    Johann Kirsten does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Most South African farmers are black: why Trump got it so wrong – https://theconversation.com/most-south-african-farmers-are-black-why-trump-got-it-so-wrong-257668

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Row over damage to Iran’s nuclear programme raises questions about intelligence

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Robert Dover, Professor of Intelligence and National Security & Dean of Faculty, University of Hull

    The ongoing debate over whether Iranian nuclear sites were “obliterated”, as the US president and his team insist, or merely “damaged”, as much of the intelligence suggest, should make us pause and think about the nature and purpose of intelligence.

    As Donald Rumsfeld famously said “if it was a fact it wouldn’t be called intelligence”.

    The recorded fate of the Iranian nuclear sites will be decided by the collection and assessment of difficult to reach raw intelligence feeds. These will include imagery, technical, communications and human intelligence, among many secret techniques.

    The classified conclusions of these efforts are unlikely to make their way into the public realm, unless there is Congressional or Senate inquiry, like the one held after 9/11.

    So, why does it matter?

    There has been strong public interest in intelligence assessments since 9/11 and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Intelligence is often only seen in public when something has gone wrong – either that something was missed or the public has been misled. Inquiries into 9/11 criticised intelligence agencies for not putting together single strands of intelligence into a whole picture, revealing the plot and the attack.

    Inquiries into the approach to the 2003 Iraq war suggested intelligence agencies had allowed their assessments to become shaped by political need, or had failed to adequately caution about what they did not know.

    Successful intelligence operations nearly always mean that something damaging to the country or the public has been prevented. If agencies celebrated these successes loudly they might reveal something about their techniques and reach that is useful to our adversaries. So, our understanding of intelligence tends to be framed by popular culture – or by the inquiries around intelligence failures.

    From these two sources, intelligence is simultaneously all-seeing and deeply flawed. Add in narratives around the “deep state” – a shorthand that accuses unnamed and publicly unaccountable government officials of frustrating the will of the people – and it should be no surprise that the public and politicians are sometimes confused about security intelligence and published assessmements.

    In the case of the Iranian nuclear facilities, the importance of the intelligence picture is focused around politics, diplomacy and security. Donald Trump would obviously prefer an official narrative that his decision and orders have put back the Iranian nuclear programme by years. This is why he talks about the sites being obliterated. And it’s why his director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, has affirmed that her intelligence-led assessment agrees. That said, she has opted not to give testimony to the Senate.

    When it comes diplomacy, the judgement of intelligence officials could do one of two things. It could either place Iran in a poorer negotiating position with no nuclear programme to provide it with the ultimate security. Or it could allow Tehran to present the country as an emerging nuclear power, with the added muscle that implies. This judgement will have an impact on Israel’s need to preemptively contain Iran. And in security terms, the classified judgement will also help to shape the next steps of the US president, his diplomats and his armed forces.

    Tulsi Gabbard, the US director of niitonal intellgence, delivers the annual threat assessment. She testifies that Iran is not actively building a nuclear weapon.

    The assessment given to the public may well be different from the one held within the administration. While uncomfortable for us outside of government circles, this is often a perfectly reasonable choice for a government to make. Security diplomacy is best done behind closed doors. Or at least, this used to be the case. Now Trump appears to be remaking the art of statecraft in public with his TruthSocial posts and his earthy and authentic language in press conferences.

    Misinformation and public mistrust

    Having a large gap between the secret intelligence assessment and the publicly acknowledged position can have stark consequences for a government. The 1971 Pentagon Papers are a good example of this.

    These were prepared for the government about the progress of the Vietnam war and leaked to the press. The leaks highlighted the inaccuracy in government reporting to the American public about the progress of the war. The fallout included a number of official inquiries that shone a negative light on intelligence agencies. They also resulted in a strengthening of media freedoms.

    Similarly, the 2003 Iraq war damaged the credibility of the US intelligence community. It became clear to that the unequivocal statements about Iraqi possession of weapons of mass destruction turned out to be overstated and under-evidenced. The loss of trust, limitations on the executive use of intelligence and the losses to the US in blood and treasure in the Iraq campaign are still being felt in American politics.

    Last, the Snowden leaks of 2013 highlighted the mismatch between what was understood about intelligence intrusion into private communications data, including internet browsing activities, and what was happening in the National Security Agency through programmes such as Prism.

    The Snowden leaks had an impact on America’s standing with its allies and resulted in the USA Freedom Act in 2015. This imposed some limits on the data that US intelligence agencies can collect on American citizens and also clarified the use of wiretaps and tracking “lone wolf” terrorists.

    The Snowden affair also fuelled a growing narrative about unaccountable deep state activity that has foregrounded online phenomena such as the conspiracy site QAnon. It has also boosted some populist politics that point to, and feed off the public suspicion on, mass surveillance and hidden government activities.

    The lessons for the current debate are clear. The first is that using intelligence assessments to justify military actions contain enduring hazards for governments, given the propensity among public servants for leaking.

    From that, it naturally follows that when published intelligence is shown to be incorrect, the unintended consequence for governments is a loss of trust and having fewer freedoms to make use of intelligence to protect the nation state.

    Robert Dover has previously received research funding from the AHRC to examine lessons that can be drawn from intelligence and he and Michael Goodman published an edited collection from this project.

    ref. Row over damage to Iran’s nuclear programme raises questions about intelligence – https://theconversation.com/row-over-damage-to-irans-nuclear-programme-raises-questions-about-intelligence-260021

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: New special tribunal for Ukraine will pave the way for holding Russian leaders to account for the invasion

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Andrew Forde, Assistant Professor – European Human Rights Law, Dublin City University

    A special tribunal has been established by the international human rights organisation the Council of Europe (CoE) and the Ukrainian government to try crimes of aggression against Ukraine which could be used to hold Vladimir Putin and others to account for the February 2022 invasion and war crimes committed since.

    The Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, signed an agreement with CoE secretary general, Alain Berset, on June 25, setting up the special tribunal. Subject to it securing the necessary political backing and budget the tribunal will be established within the framework of the CoE (which is not part of the European Union.

    Work on the first phase of the court could progress in 2026. In his speech to the Council of Europe parliamentary assembly in Strasbourg, Zelensky was cautious in his optimism but stressed that the agreement was “just the beginning”.

    “It will take strong political and legal cooperation to make sure every Russian war criminal faces justice – including Putin,” he said. He knows, through years of hard experience as he travelled the world seeking help from Ukraine’s allies, that political support can be fleeting.

    A new Nuremberg?

    Inspired by ad hoc courts established after major conflicts such as the Nuremberg tribunal after the second world war or, more recently the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)
    in the 1990s, the Ukraine has been established with the aim of holding to account the perpetrators of the first full-scale armed conflict in Europe in the 21st century.

    The prohibition against the crime of aggression is a basic principle of international law, and a key part of the UN charter.

    In principle, the crime of aggression should be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court (ICC). But as Russia is not a party to the Rome Statute which underpins the court, that option was ruled out. Similarly, Russia’s veto on the UN security council meant that it would be impossible in practice to practically set up a court under the mandate of the UN – as the ICTY was in 1993.

    The Ukraine special tribunal, which was developed by a Core Group, made up of states plus the EU and the Council of Europe, seeks to fill an obvious accountability gap. If the illegal invasion is left unpunished, it would set a dangerous precedent.

    Such impunity would embolden Russia and inspire others with revanchist ambitions, undermining an already shaky international order. The US, which was instrumental in setting up the Core Group under the presidency of Joe Biden, withdrew in March 2025 when Donald Trump took office.

    The statute of the special tribunal sets out that the court will be based on Ukrainian law and will have a strong link to the country’s legal system. Ukraine’s prosecutor-general will play a key role in the proceedings, referring evidence for further investigation by the tribunal. But it will be internationally funded with international judges and prosecutors, and strong cooperation with the International Criminal Court. It is likely to be based in the Hague – although this has yet to be confirmed.

    The need for accountability for the illegal invasion of Ukraine was stressed in a resolution of the UN general assembly in February 2023 as the war headed into its second year. The resolution, which calls for “appropriate, fair and independent investigations and prosecutions at the national or international level” to “ensure justice for all victims and the prevention of future crimes” was approved by an overwhelming majority of 141 states. Any country in the world can join this core group to support its establishment.

    Holding leaders accountable

    Unlike previous international courts, the caseload is likely to be extremely narrow. There are likely to be dozens of charges rather than hundreds or thousands, which is perhaps reassuring in terms of managing costs.

    The tribunal will focus on those “most responsible” including the so-called “troika”: the president Vladimir Putin, prime minister Mikhail Mishustin and the minister for foreign affairs Sergey Lavrov. Charges may also be levelled against the leadership of Belarus and North Korea for their role in aiding, abetting and actively participating in the war of aggression. But don’t expect Kim Jong-un or Alexander Lukashenko in the dock anytime soon.

    The Court has opted for a novel approach to a longstanding customary rule by noting that heads of state are not functionally immune from prosecution. But it adds that indictments won’t be confirmed until such time as the suspect is no longer in office.

    Trials can take place in absentia if the accused fails to attend and all reasonable steps taken to apprehend them have failed. But, like the ICC, the court will still rely on states to apprehend and physically transfer indicted individuals in due course. This will inevitably limit the chances of seeing any of the key individuals actually in a court, something that has also dogged the ICC.

    The fact that a tribunal has now been set up is a major development in international criminal justice. But it is now in a sort of purgatory, existing and not existing at the same time. To become operational, another treaty known as an enlarged partial agreement must be signed by interested states. This will have to be ratified by many national parliaments, depending on their constitutions. This process could take years.

    But simply by creating the framework for the tribunal, the Council of Europe has demonstrated its commitment to ensuring accountability. In a further development, the European Court of Human Rights delivers its long-awaited judgment in the case of Ukraine and the Netherlands v Russia on July 9.

    This concerns “complaints about the conflict in eastern Ukraine involving pro-Russian separatists which began in 2014, including the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17, and the Russian military operations in Ukraine since 2022”. The judgement will add further momentum to these accountability efforts.

    Symbolic as it may seem, this week’s agreement creates a real opportunity for the international community to send a message that impunity for international aggression is intolerable – not just for the victims, but for all who believe in the rule of law.

    Andrew Forde is affiliated with Dublin City University (Assistant Professor, European Human Rights Law). He is also, separately, affiliated with the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (Commissioner).

    ref. New special tribunal for Ukraine will pave the way for holding Russian leaders to account for the invasion – https://theconversation.com/new-special-tribunal-for-ukraine-will-pave-the-way-for-holding-russian-leaders-to-account-for-the-invasion-260022

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Threatening diversity, threatening growth: the business effects of Trump’s anti-DEI and anti-trans agendas

    Source: The Conversation – France – By Matteo Winkler, Professeur associé en droit et fiscalité, HEC Paris Business School

    Recent months have seen a dramatic shift in US policies on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). These changes carry deep economic consequences. President Donald Trump’s executive orders aim to ban DEI initiatives in federal agencies and contractors, and private companies have felt pressure to weaken or drop their DEI programmes. Trump has framed what was once a corporate safeguard against discrimination as “illegal and immoral”, marking a stark reversal in legal and business norms. Federal judges have blocked some of Trump’s orders, or elements of them, and some legal processes are ongoing.

    Transgender rights have become a lightning rod in this shifting landscape. The barrage of federal directives seeks to challenge – or outright eliminate – protections in areas ranging from health care to education to the military. Beyond the immediate harm to trans individuals, these policies pose threats to multinational companies that have long defended inclusive workplace values. Their leaders must now navigate a cultural minefield where staying silent risks public backlash, while openly supporting trans employees can invite legal and political complications. The business repercussions of this moral issue could affect everything from brand reputation to talent retention.


    A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!

    The economic imperative of DEI initiatives

    There is a growing ensemble of research suggesting that DEI policies are not just nice-to-have but a corporate imperative. This year, the World Economic Forum reported that organizations that include DEI in their core business strategies improve performance, innovation and employee satisfaction. These findings are in line with other studies, which have consistently demonstrated that inclusive workplaces not only attract top talent but perform better financially and have higher returns on assets and net income.

    With regard to people identifying as LGBTI+, a 2024 report by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development highlighted that inclusive policies enable LGBTI+ individuals to achieve their full employment and productivity potential, benefiting both their well-being and society at large. Moreover, according to Open for Business, a think tank whose mission is making a case for LGBTQ+ inclusion in private and public settings, companies with “larger LGBTQ+ workforce benefit from diverse perspectives but also foster environments where innovation and productivity thrive”. It has also been found that human rights violations against LGBTI+ people diminish economic output at the micro level, suggesting that inclusive societies are more likely to experience robust economic growth.




    À lire aussi :
    Business schools are facing challenges to their diversity commitments. They must reinforce them to train leaders effectively


    Research has also shown that trans-inclusive business practices have long been associated with innovation, employee satisfaction and market competitiveness. Companies that provide gender-neutral bathroom access, introduce the inclusive use of pronouns and support employees’ gender transitions have been proven to foster relational authenticity in the workplace.

    Discrimination and exclusion, by contrast, not only harm individuals but also impede economic growth by limiting the available talent pool and reducing overall productivity. In September 2024, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) reported that “laws and policies designed to restrict or prevent access or supports for transgender and nonbinary people” endanger LGBTQ+ individuals and their allies, leading to increased fear, lack of safety and a rise in anti-LGBTQ+ violence. More generally, these laws and policies can also deter businesses from investing in regions perceived as discriminatory. Also in September, the Movement Advancement Project identified that the lack of legal protection against discrimination contributes to economic instability for LGBTQ+ families, which can lead to wage gaps, job insecurity and reduced access to benefits, ultimately contributing to reduced consumer spending and lower economic participation.

    Language targeting trans rights and visibility

    Despite the benefits of DEI initiatives, the current US administration has sought to enact several policies aimed at dismantling them, resulting in organizations, both public and private, to suspend funding for DEI and outreach programmes. In Trump’s executive orders, anything – policy, programme or initiative – related to or benefitting trans people in access to healthcare, academic research, scientific inquiry, school policies, personal safety, participation in sports, and military service is now rejected as “gender ideology extremism”.

    Targeting sports, education and the military is functional to an ideological battle aimed at erasing spaces where trans people are most vulnerable. These spaces are also formative arenas in shaping national identity and the public perception of DEI initiatives. When they become politicized, they can also affect how businesses frame their values, manage risks and engage with their different stakeholders.




    À lire aussi :
    Anti-DEI guidance from Trump administration misinterprets the law and guts educators’ free speech rights


    The anti-trans executive orders begin by redefining the term “sex” for interpretations of federal law. According to the text of “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to Federal Government”, a person is either male or female, which is determined by their reproductive cells at conception – a definition in which biology takes precedence over individual rights and legal protections. “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports” weaponizes this “biological truth” by threatening to cut off federal funds to schools that allow trans athletes to participate in them. “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness” equates being transgender with medical or physical incapacity despite no evidence suggesting that trans service members negatively impact military readiness. “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling” seeks to prevent schools from teaching about gender identity, which would strip trans youth of critical support systems. And “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation” describes gender-affirming healthcare as “destructive”.

    The ripple effects of this anti-trans rhetoric extend into the private sector, compelling businesses to reevaluate their DEI strategies in fear of backlash or scrutiny. Even before the last US presidential election, companies such as Ford, Harley-Davidson and Lowe’s withdrew their participation in the Corporate Equality Index, a national benchmarking tool on corporate policies and practices related to LGBTQ+ workplace equality. In the wake of Trump’s anti-DEI and anti-trans orders, organizers of various Pride events in the US and Canada learned that some corporations, including longtime sponsors, had decided not to fund them. And according to the New York Times, some companies erased language and terms related to DEI from annual reports filed this year, including Dow Chemical, whose reference to LGBTQ+ employee resource groups disappeared from its public documents.

    Navigating between inclusive values and anti-DEI pressure

    Three patterns seem to be emerging on how companies are navigating the tension between values that are inclusive of LGBTI+ people and the growing pressure to scrub DEI commitments within the US context. For the moment, these patterns do not reflect formalized strategies but adaptive responses to an environment that has grown in complexity in a very short time. Some corporate actions reflect deliberate strategy aimed at protecting global consistency, while others appear more reactive, shaped by local market pressures.

    The first pattern involves establishing a sort of internal firewall between US and international operations. Banco Santander provides a clear example of this approach. Thus far, it has maintained global DEI commitments such as tying executive bonuses to increased gender equality in leadership. This group stated that such targets would not be applied to countries where governmental policies target DEI. In this pattern, DEI programmes are maintained abroad but are dismantled in the US to minimize political exposure in the latter.

    The second approach, observed at accounting firm Deloitte, is a cultural split between US operations and those overseas: while entities under the same global brand may still share data, practices, or strategic frameworks internally, they now adopt publicly distinct positions on DEI. Deloitte UK has remained vocal on its DEI commitments, highlighting the cultural and political fault lines that multinationals must now navigate.

    The third approach is a retraction of DEI altogether. Target offers a striking example. In 2023, under increased political and consumer pressure, the company rolled back some of its LGBTQ+ inclusion efforts by reducing the number of Pride-related items for sale. In 2025, four days after Trump’s inauguration, Target announced it would “end its three-year DEI goals”, cease reporting to the Corporate Equality Index and “end a program focused on carrying more products from Black- or minority-owned businesses”, as reported by CNBC. The moves resulted in considerable public criticism, and more notably, coincided with a marked drop in foot traffic – “nearly 5 million fewer visits” over a four-week period – revealing reputational and financial risks associated with the abandoning of DEI policies. By contrast, bulk retailer Costco, which said three days after the inauguration that its shareholders voted against a proposal seen as unfriendly to the company’s DEI programmes, “saw nearly 7.7 million more visits” during that same stretch.




    À lire aussi :
    A boycott campaign fuels tension between Black shoppers and Black-owned brands – evoking the long struggle for ‘consumer citizenship’


    In light of the evidence, it is clear that undermining DEI initiatives poses substantial risks – not just to human dignity, but to economic competitiveness. Businesses and policymakers must recognize that DEI is not merely a social or ethical imperative but a core strategy for growth and innovation. By fostering environments where all individuals can thrive, we unlock the full potential of our workforce and ensure sustainable economic growth.

    Conversely, discriminatory policies contribute to social instability, brain drain and economic stagnation. In the United States, the rollback of DEI initiatives and the marginalization of transgender individuals threaten to erode the nation’s ability to uphold human rights and maintain business competitiveness. History demonstrates that exclusionary policies ultimately harm societies rather than strengthen them. The question remains whether the US can afford to sacrifice social stability and economic growth in pursuit of ideological battles. The evidence suggests that it cannot.

    Matteo Winkler is a member of the Open for Business Academic Committee. He has received funding from the HEC Foundation.

    Marcelle Laliberté is a member of Women in Aerospace Europe and HEC We&Men, and a contributor to the UN`s High Advisory Board on Governing AI for Humanity.

    ref. Threatening diversity, threatening growth: the business effects of Trump’s anti-DEI and anti-trans agendas – https://theconversation.com/threatening-diversity-threatening-growth-the-business-effects-of-trumps-anti-dei-and-anti-trans-agendas-255040

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Will the fragile ceasefire between Iran and Israel hold? One factor could be crucial to it sticking

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Ali Mamouri, Research Fellow, Middle East Studies, Deakin University

    Amir Levy/Getty Images

    After 12 days of war, US President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire between Israel and Iran that would bring to an end the most dramatic, direct conflict between the two nations in decades.

    Israel and Iran both agreed to adhere to the ceasefire, though they said they would respond with force to any breach.

    If the ceasefire holds – a big if – the key question will be whether this signals the start of lasting peace, or merely a brief pause before renewed conflict.

    As contemporary war studies show, peace tends to endure under one of two conditions: either the total defeat of one side, or the establishment of mutual deterrence. This means both parties refrain from aggression because the expected costs of retaliation far outweigh any potential gains.

    What did each side gain?

    The war has marked a turning point for Israel in its decades-long confrontation with Iran. For the first time, Israel successfully brought a prolonged battle to Iranian soil, shifting the conflict from confrontations with Iranian-backed proxy militant groups to direct strikes on Iran itself.

    This was made possible largely due to Israel’s success over the past two years in weakening Iran’s regional proxy network, particularly Hezbollah in Lebanon and Shiite militias in Syria.

    Over the past two weeks, Israel has inflicted significant damage on Iran’s military and scientific elite, killing several high-ranking commanders and nuclear scientists. The civilian toll was also high.

    Additionally, Israel achieved a major strategic objective by pulling the United States directly into the conflict. In coordination with Israel, the US launched strikes on three of Iran’s primary nuclear facilities: Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan.

    Despite these gains, Israel has not accomplished all of its stated goals. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had voiced support for regime change, urging Iranians to rise up against Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s government, but the senior leadership in Iran remains intact.

    Additionally, Israel has not fully eliminated Iran’s missile program. (Iran continued striking to the last minute before the ceasefire.) And Tehran did not acquiesce to Trump’s pre-war demand to end uranium enrichment.

    Although Iran was caught off-guard by Israel’s attacks — particularly as it was engaged in nuclear negotiations with the US — it responded by launching hundreds of missiles towards Israel.

    While many were intercepted, a significant number penetrated Israeli air defences, causing widespread destruction in major cities, dozens of fatalities and hundreds of injuries.

    Iran has demonstrated its capacity to strike back, though Israel has succeeded in destroying many of its air defence systems, some ballistic missile assets (including missile launchers) and multiple energy facilities.

    Since the beginning of the assault, Iranian officials have repeatedly called for a halt to resume negotiations. Under such intense pressure, Iran has realised it would not benefit from a prolonged war of attrition with Israel — especially as both nations face mounting costs and the risk of depleting their military stockpiles if the war continues.

    As theories of victory suggest, success in war is defined not only by the damage inflicted, but by achieving core strategic goals and weakening the enemy’s will and capacity to resist.

    While Israel claims to have achieved the bulk of its objectives, the extent of the damage to Iran’s nuclear program is not fully known, nor is its capacity to continue enriching uranium.

    Both sides could remain locked in a volatile standoff over Iran’s nuclear program, with the conflict potentially reigniting whenever either side perceives a strategic opportunity.

    Sticking point over Iran’s nuclear program

    Iran faces even greater challenges when it emerges from the war. With a heavy toll on its leadership and nuclear infrastructure, Tehran will likely prioritise rebuilding its deterrence capability.

    That includes acquiring new advanced air defence systems — potentially from China — and restoring key components of its missile and nuclear programs. (Some experts say Iran has not used some of its most powerful missiles to maintain this deterrence.)

    Iranian officials have claimed they safeguarded more than 400 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium before the attacks. This stockpile could theoretically be converted into nine to ten nuclear warheads if further enriched to 90%.

    Trump declared Iran’s nuclear capacity had been “totally obliterated”, whereas Rafael Grossi, the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog chief, said damage to Iran’s facilities was “very significant”.

    However, analysts have argued Iran will still have a depth of technical knowledge accumulated over decades. Depending on the extent of the damage to its underground facilities, Iran could be capable of restoring and even accelerating its program in a relatively short time frame.

    And the chances of reviving negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program appear slimmer than ever.

    What might future deterrence look like?

    The war has fundamentally reshaped how both Iran and Israel perceive deterrence — and how they plan to secure it going forward.

    For Iran, the conflict has reinforced the belief that its survival is at stake. With regime change openly discussed during the war, Iran’s leaders appear more convinced than ever that true deterrence requires two key pillars: nuclear weapons capability, and deeper strategic alignment with China and Russia.

    As a result, Iran is expected to move rapidly to restore and advance its nuclear program, potentially moving towards actual weaponisation — a step it had long avoided, officially.

    At the same time, Tehran is likely to accelerate military and economic cooperation with Beijing and Moscow to hedge against isolation. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi emphasised this close engagement with Russia during a visit to Moscow this week, particularly on nuclear matters.

    Israel, meanwhile, sees deterrence as requiring constant vigilance and a credible threat of overwhelming retaliation. In the absence of diplomatic breakthroughs, Israel may adopt a policy of immediate preemptive strikes on Iranian facilities or leadership figures if it detects any new escalation — particularly related to Iran’s nuclear program.

    In this context, the current ceasefire already appears fragile. Without comprehensive negotiations that address the core issues — namely, Iran’s nuclear capabilities — the pause in hostilities may prove temporary.

    Mutual deterrence may prevent a more protracted war for now, but the balance remains precarious and could collapse with little warning.

    Ali Mamouri does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Will the fragile ceasefire between Iran and Israel hold? One factor could be crucial to it sticking – https://theconversation.com/will-the-fragile-ceasefire-between-iran-and-israel-hold-one-factor-could-be-crucial-to-it-sticking-259669

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: 4 reasons to be concerned about Bill C-4’s threats to Canadian privacy and sovereignty

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Sara Bannerman, Professor and Canada Research Chair in Communication Policy and Governance, McMaster University

    In Canada, federal political parties are not governed by basic standards of federal privacy law. If passed, Bill C-4, also known as the Making Life More Affordable for Canadians Act, would also make provincial and territorial privacy laws inapplicable to federal political parties, with no adequate federal law in place.

    Federal legislation in the form of the Privacy Act and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act sets out privacy standards for government and business, based on the fair information principles that provide for the collection, use and disclosure of Canadians’ personal information.

    At the moment, these laws don’t apply to political parties. Some provinces — especially British Columbia — have implemented laws that do. In May 2024, the B.C. Supreme Court upheld the provincial Information Commissioner’s ruling that B.C.’s privacy legislation applies to federal political parties. That decision is currently under appeal.

    Bill C-4 would undermine those B.C. rights. It would make inapplicable to federal parties the standard privacy rights that apply in other business and government contexts— such as the right to consent to the collection, use and disclosure of personal information — and to access and correct personal information held by organizations.

    Why should we be concerned about Bill C-4’s erasure of these privacy protections for Canadians? There are four reasons:

    1. Threats to Canada’s sovereignty

    In light of threats to Canadian sovereignty by United States President Donald Trump, the Canadian government and Canadian politicians must rethink their approach to digital sovereignty.

    Until now, Canadian parties and governments have been content to use American platforms, data companies and datified campaign tactics. Bill C-4 would leave federal parties free to do more of the same. This is the opposite of what’s needed.

    The politics that resulted in Trump being elected twice to the Oval Office was spurred in part by the datafied campaigning of Cambridge Analytica in 2016 and Elon Musk in 2024. These politics are driven by micro-targeted and arguably manipulative political campaigns.

    Do Canadians want Canada to go in the same direction?




    Read more:
    How political party data collection may turn off voters


    Are political parties spying and experimenting on Canadians via personal data collection?
    (Unsplash/Arthur Mazi), FAL

    2. Threats to Canada’s future

    Bill C-4 would undermine one of the mechanisms that makes Canada a society: collective political decisions.

    Datified campaigning and the collection of personal information by political parties change the nature of democracy. Rather than appealing to political values or visions of what voters may want in the future or as a society — critically important at this historical and troubling moment in history — datified campaigning operates by experimenting on unwitting individual citizens who are alone on their phones and computers. It operates by testing their isolated opinions and unvarnished behaviours.

    For example, a political campaign might do what’s known as A/B testing of ads, which explores whether ad A or ad B is more successful by issuing two different versions of an ad to determine which one gets more clicks, shares, petition signatures, donations or other measurable behaviour. With this knowledge, a campaign or party can manipulate the ads through multiple versions to get the desired behaviour and result. They also learn about ad audiences for future targeting.




    Read more:
    A/B testing: how offline businesses are learning from Google to improve profits


    In other words, political parties engaging in this tactic aren’t engaging with Canadians — they’re experimenting on them to see what type of messages, or even what colour schemes or visuals, appeal most. This can be used to shape the campaign or just the determine the style of follow-up messaging to particular users.

    University researchers, to name just one example, are bound by strict ethical protocols and approvals, including the principle that participants should consent to the collection of personal information, and to participation in experiments and studies. Political parties have no such standards, despite the high stakes — the very future of democracy and society.

    Most citizens think of elections as being about deliberation and collectively deciding what kind of society they want to live in and what kind of future they want to have together as they decide how to cast their ballots.

    But with datified campaigning, citizens may not be aware of the political significance of their online actions. Their data trail might cause them to be included, or excluded, from a party’s future campaigning and door-knocking, for example. The process isn’t deliberative, thoughtful or collective.

    3. Secret personal data collection

    Political parties collect highly personal data about Canadians without their knowledge or consent. Most Canadians are not aware of the extent of the collection by political parties and the range of data they collect, which can include political views, ethnicity, income, religion or online activities, social media IDs, observations of door-knockers and more.

    If asked, most Canadians would not consent to the range of data collection by parties.

    4. Data can be dangerous in the wrong hands

    Some governments can and do use data to punish individuals politically and criminally, sometimes without the protection of the rule of law.

    Breaches and misuses of data, cybersecurity experts say, are no longer a question of “if,” but “when.”

    Worse, what would happen if the wall between political parties and politicians or government broke down and the personal information collected by parties became available to governments? What if the data were used for political purposes, such as for vetting people for political appointments or government benefits? What if it were used against civil servants?

    What if it were to be used at the border, or passed to other governments? What if it were passed to and used by authoritarian governments to harass and punish citizens?

    What if it was passed to tech companies and further to data brokers?

    OpenMedia recently revealed that Canadians’ data is being passed to the many different data companies political parties use. That data is not necessarily housed in Canada or by Canadian companies.

    If provincial law is undermined, there are few protections against any of these problems.

    Strengthening democracy

    Bill C-4 would erase the possibility of provincial and territorial privacy laws being applied to federal political parties, with virtually nothing remaining. Privacy protection promotes confidence and engagement with democratic processes — particularly online. Erasing privacy protections threatens this confidence and engagement.

    The current approach of federal political parties in terms of datified campaigning and privacy law is entirely wrong for this political moment, dangerous to Canadians and dangerous to democracy. Reforms should instead ensure federal political parties must adhere to the same standards as businesses and all levels of government.

    Data privacy is important everywhere, but particularly so for political parties, campaigns and democratic engagement. It is important at all times — particularly now.

    Sara Bannerman receives funding from the Canada Research Chairs program, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, and McMaster University. She has previously received funding from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner’s Contributions Program and the Digital Ecosystem Research Challenge.

    ref. 4 reasons to be concerned about Bill C-4’s threats to Canadian privacy and sovereignty – https://theconversation.com/4-reasons-to-be-concerned-about-bill-c-4s-threats-to-canadian-privacy-and-sovereignty-259331

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Appeals court ruling grants Donald Trump broad powers to deploy troops to American cities

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Jack L. Rozdilsky, Associate Professor of Disaster and Emergency Management, York University, Canada

    Residents of Los Angeles will need to get used to federally controlled National Guard troops operating on their streets. Due to a ruling from an appeals court on June 19, United States President Donald Trump now has broad authority to deploy military forces in American cities.

    This is a troubling development. All presidents have held in their grasp extraordinary powers to deploy military troops domestically. But Trump stands apart with his apparent keen interest in manufacturing false emergencies to exploit extraordinary power.

    An 1878 law called the Posse Comitatus Act restricts using the military for domestic law enforcement. The broader principle being challenged by Trump’s actions in L.A. is the norm of the military not being allowed to interfere in the affairs of civilian governance.

    Injunctions and appeals

    Five months into Trump’s presidency, L.A. has been targeted for aggressive immigration enforcement. In their pluralistic city where dozens of languages and nationalities peacefully co-exist, some Angelenos believe the city is experiencing an attack on its most essential social fabric.

    On June 7, Trump acted under United States Code Title 10 provisions to take over command and control of California’s National Guard. Federalized military forces were deployed.

    The objective was to counter what Trump argued was a form of rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States. In fact, these “rebellions” were largely peaceful protests in downtown L.A.

    On June 9, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted an injunction restraining the president’s use of military force in L.A. The court order supported Gov. Gavin Newsom’s contention that Trump overstepped his authority.

    On June 19, a decision from a panel of judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned the injunction.

    What this means at the moment is that Trump does not have to return control of the troops to Newsom. California has options to continue litigation by asking the Federal Appeals Court to rehear the matter, or perhaps directly asking the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene.

    Moving toward authoritarianism

    Trump’s June 7 memorandum facilitating his move to overrule Newsom’s authority and seize control of 2,000 National Guard troops was based on the president defining his own so-called emergency.

    He claimed incidents of violence and disorder following aggressive immigration enforcement amounted to a form of rebellion against the U.S.

    As Trump flexes his emergency power might, his second term has been called the 911 presidency. He has used extraordinary emergency powers at a pace well beyond his predecessors, pressing the limits to address his administration’s supposed sense of serious perils overtaking the nation.

    Issues arise when the level of actual danger locally is not at all representative of what the president suggests is a full-scale national emergency. For example, demonstrations over immigration raids occupied only a tiny parcel of real estate in L.A.’s huge metropolitan area. A Los Angeles-based rebellion against the U.S. was not occurring.

    As dissent over aggressive immigration enforcement actions grew, localized clashes with law enforcement did occur. Mutual aid surged into Los Angeles, where neighbouring California law enforcement agencies acted to assist one another. The law enforcement challenges never rose to the level of the governor of California requesting additional federal support.

    Shortly after the federal government took over the California National Guard, Newsom said the move was purposefully inflammatory.

    In addition to declaring dubious emergencies to amass power, stoking violence is a characteristic of authoritarian rulers. Creating fear, division and feelings of insecurity can lead to community crises. Trump did not need to wait for a crisis; it seems he simply invented one.

    No guardrails

    The expression “out of kilter” comes to mind as Trump inches closer to invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807. If so, the situation will look quite similar in practice to what is happening now in Los Angeles.

    Five years ago, Trump flirted with invoking the Insurrection Act during Black Lives Matter unrest in Washington, D.C., in and around Lafayette Park.

    As recent L.A. protests intensified, Trump stated: “We’re going to have troops everywhere.”

    Currently, there are few guardrails in place to prevent a rogue president from misusing the military in domestic civilian affairs. Trump has been coy about whether he would tap into the greater powers available to him under the Insurrection Act.

    Real emergencies presenting existential threats to America do persist. Nuclear proliferation, climate change and pandemics need serious leaders. But politically exploiting last-resort emergency laws designed to provide options to deal with genuine existential threats — not to weaponize them against protesters demonstrating against public policy — is absurd.

    Jack L. Rozdilsky receives support for research communication and public scholarship from York University. He also has received research support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

    ref. Appeals court ruling grants Donald Trump broad powers to deploy troops to American cities – https://theconversation.com/appeals-court-ruling-grants-donald-trump-broad-powers-to-deploy-troops-to-american-cities-258894

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Israel bombed an Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 − it pushed program underground and spurred Saddam Hussein’s desire for nukes

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Jeffrey Fields, Professor of the Practice of International Relations, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

    The Osirak nuclear power research station in 1981. Jacques Pavlovsky/Sygma via Getty Images

    Israel, with the assistance of U.S. military hardware, bombs an adversary’s nuclear facility to set back the perceived pursuit of the ultimate weapon. We have been here before, about 44 years ago.

    In 1981, Israeli fighter jets supplied by Washington attacked an Iraqi nuclear research reactor being built near Baghdad by the French government.

    The reactor, which the French called Osirak and Iraqis called Tammuz, was destroyed. Much of the international community initially condemned the attack. But Israel claimed the raid set Iraqi nuclear ambitions back at least a decade. In time, many Western observers and government officials, too, chalked up the attack as a win for nonproliferation, hailing the strike as an audacious but necessary step to prevent Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein from building a nuclear arsenal.

    But the reality is more complicated. As nuclear proliferation experts assess the extent of damage to Iran’s nuclear facilities following the recent U.S. and Israeli raids, it is worth reassessing the longer-term implications of that earlier Iraqi strike.

    The Osirak reactor

    Iraq joined the landmark Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1970, committing the country to refrain from the pursuit of nuclear weapons. But in exchange, signatories are entitled to engage in civilian nuclear activities, including having research or power reactors and access to the enriched uranium that drives them.

    The International Atomic Energy Agency is responsible through safeguards agreements for monitoring countries’ civilian use of nuclear technology, with on-the-ground inspections to ensure that civilian nuclear programs do not divert materials for nuclear weapons.

    But to Israel, the Iraqi reactor was provocative and an escalation in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

    Israel believed that Iraq would use the French reactor – Iraq said it was for research purposes – to generate plutonium for a nuclear weapon. After diplomacy with France and the United States failed to persuade the two countries to halt construction of the reactor, Prime Minister Menachem Begin concluded that attacking the reactor was Israel’s best option. That decision gave birth to the “Begin Doctrine,” which has committing Israel to preventing its regional adversaries from becoming nuclear powers ever since.

    Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin addresses the press after the 1981 attack on the Osarik nuclear reactor.
    Israel Press and Photo Agency/Wikimedia Commons

    In spring 1979, Israel attempted to sabotage the project, bombing the reactor core destined for Iraq while it sat awaiting shipment in the French town of La Seyne-sur-Mer. The mission was only a partial success, damaging but not destroying the reactor.

    France and Iraq persisted with the project, and in July 1980 – with the reactor having been delivered – Iraq received the first shipment of highly enriched uranium fuel at the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center near Baghdad.

    Then in September 1980, during the initial days of the Iran-Iraq war, Iranian jets struck the nuclear research center. The raid also targeted a power station, knocking out electricity in Baghdad for several days. But a Central Intelligence Agency situation report assessed that “only secondary buildings” were hit at the nuclear site itself.

    It was then Israel’s turn. The reactor was still unfinished and not in operation when on June 7, 1981, eight U.S.-supplied F-16s flew over Jordanian and Saudi airspace and bombed the reactor in Iraq. The attack killed 10 Iraqi soldiers and a French civilian.

    Revisiting the ‘success’ of Israeli raid

    Many years later, U.S. President Bill Clinton commented: “Everybody talks about what the Israelis did at Osirak in 1981, which I think, in retrospect, was a really good thing. You know, it kept Saddam from developing nuclear power.”

    But nonproliferation experts have contended for years that while Saddam may have had nuclear weapons ambitions, the French-built research reactor would not have been the route to go. Iraq would either have had to divert the reactor’s highly enriched uranium fuel for a few weapons or shut the reactor down to extract plutonium from the fuel rods – all while hiding these operations from the International Atomic Energy Agency.

    As an additional safeguard, the French government, too, had pledged to shut down the reactor if it detected efforts to use the reactor for weapons purposes.

    In any event, Iraq’s desire for a nuclear weapon was more aspirational than operational. A 2011 article in the journal International Security included interviews with several scientists who worked on Iraq’s nuclear program and characterized the country’s pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability as “both directionless and disorganized” before the attack.

    Iraq’s program begins in earnest

    So what happened after the strike? Many analysts have argued that the Israeli attack, rather than diminish Iraqi desire for a nuclear weapon, actually catalyzed it.

    Nuclear proliferation expert Målfrid Braut-Hegghammer, the author of the 2011 study, concluded that the Israeli attack “triggered a nuclear weapons program where one did not previously exist.”

    In the aftermath of the attack, Saddam decided to formally, if secretively, establish a nuclear weapons program, with scientists deciding that a uranium-based weapon was the best route. He tasked his scientists with pursuing multiple methods to enrich uranium to weapons grade to ensure success, much the way the Manhattan Project scientists approached the same problem in the U.S.

    In other words, the Israeli attack, rather than set back an existing nuclear weapons program, turned an incoherent and exploratory nuclear endeavor into a drive to get the bomb personally overseen by Saddam and sparing little expense even as Iraq’s war with Iran substantially taxed Iraqi resources.

    From 1981 to 1987, the nuclear program progressed fitfully, facing both organizational and scientific challenges.

    As those challenges were beginning to be addressed, Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, provoking a military response from the United States. In the aftermath of what would become Operation Desert Storm, U.N. weapons inspectors discovered and dismantled the clandestine Iraqi nuclear weapons program.

    The Tammuz nuclear reactor was hit again during the 1991 Gulf War.
    Ramzi Haidar/AFP via Getty Images

    Had Saddam not invaded Kuwait over a matter not related to security, it is very possible that Baghdad would have had a nuclear weapon capability by the mid-to-late 1990s.

    Similarly to Iraq in 1980, Iran today is a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. At the time President Donald Trump withdrew U.S. support in 2018 for the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, colloquially known as the Iran nuclear deal, the International Atomic Energy Agency certified that Tehran was complying with the requirements of the agreement.

    In the case of Iraq, military action on its nascent nuclear program merely pushed it underground – to Saddam, the Israeli strikes made acquiring the ultimate weapon more rather than less attractive as a deterrent. Almost a half-century on, some analysts and observers are warning the same about Iran.

    Jeffrey Fields receives funding from the Carnegie Corporation of New York and Schmidt Futures.

    ref. Israel bombed an Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 − it pushed program underground and spurred Saddam Hussein’s desire for nukes – https://theconversation.com/israel-bombed-an-iraqi-nuclear-reactor-in-1981-it-pushed-program-underground-and-spurred-saddam-husseins-desire-for-nukes-259618

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Canada Day: How Canadian nationalism is evolving with the times — and will continue to do so

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Eric Wilkinson, Postdoctoral Fellow in Philosophy, University of British Columbia

    Tariffs imposed on Canada by the United States have fuelled a surge in nationalist sentiment that played a significant role in the outcome of April’s federal election.

    Mark Carney’s new Liberal government has signalled an interest in pursuing nation-building projects that hearken back to an earlier period in Canadian history.

    Economic, cultural and social policy in Canada has often served the purpose of building national unity to facilitate cohesion and collective action. But some commentators have cautioned Canadians to dampen their reinvigorated sense of pride in their nation.




    Read more:
    Canadians are more patriotic than ever amid Trump’s trade war — but it’s important not to take national pride too far


    Those on the right view Canadian nationalism as an obstacle to neo-liberal economic policies while the left perceives it as irredeemably flawed.

    For people on the right, free trade and globalization are thought to produce the best economic outcomes, and nationalism obstructs those outcomes. But those on the progressive left argue that Canada was founded on racist policies and settler colonialism, so nationalism should be rejected because of this original sin.




    Read more:
    This Canada Day, settler Canadians should think about ‘land back’


    What is a nation?

    Both perspectives — and the public discussion of Canada’s national identity more generally — remain mired in confusion over the nature of nations. As a political philosopher, I have worked to clear up this confusion by determining what nations are and how they evolve.

    In the 19th century, French scholar Ernest Renan outlined a definition of nation that has yet to be improved upon. For Renan, a nation consists of two things: the daily commitment of a people to continue to live and work together and a collective memory of a shared past together.

    In contemporary times, Irish social scientist Benedict Anderson described nations as “imagined communities,” since the character of the nation is determined by the limits of the collective imagination of its citizens.

    These are subjective definitions of nations because they define national communities in terms of the identification of their members with the community.

    There are other, more common objective definitions of a nation involving identity, including shared ethnicity, religion or culture. But these definitions have long been criticized since many national identities transcend ethnicity, religion, culture or any other identity markers.

    Nations vs. states

    A national community is distinct from a state. The state constitutes the formal political institutions of a society, while the nation is the community of people within that society who view each other as compatriots. This is why the phrase “the people” is often used as a synonym for the national community.

    While some nations are stateless, in other cases, multiple nations co-exist within a single state.

    In Canada, there is the Québécois nation and many Indigenous nations within the Canadian nation. Although they are distinct, states and their governments will often build national identities around themselves to enable cohesion and collective action. Canada’s national identity was systematically shaped by successive governments — from Confederation onward — to build the society that Canadians live in today.

    The character of a particular nation is not fixed.

    The beliefs, practices and culture of the people who choose to live and work together can be shaped into anything they collectively decide on. A nation can adopt new values, redefine its membership or have one of its definitive characteristics fade from prominence.

    Accordingly, there is no reason to think that moral failings of a national community’s past must compromise it forever. A nation can, and sometimes does, recognize its past failures and become something better.

    Patriotism vs. nationalism

    A distinction is sometimes drawn between “patriotism” and “nationalism,” with the most famous being made by English social critic and novelist George Orwell.

    For Orwell, patriotism is devotion to a particular way of life without the desire to force it on other people, while nationalism denotes an impulse to seek power for one’s nation. Patriotism, then, is a benign, ethical form of partiality to one’s nation.

    Other thinkers have sought to explain how national identities and communities can be cultivated in an ethical way, described by Israeli philosopher Yael Tamir as “liberal nationalism.”

    The liberal nationalist, according to Tamir, seeks to construct a national identity that adopts the correct ethical values. They hope to harness the energy of nationalism to build a nation committed to liberty, inclusivity and progress.

    In 1867, George-Étienne Cartier described the Canadian identity that he and the other Fathers of Confederation sought to create as a “political nationality.” He viewed Canadian identity as being defined by shared principles rather than language or ethnicity.

    More than 150 years later, political theorist Michael Ignatieff made a similar distinction between ethnic and civic nationalism. In an ethnic nation, citizens identify with each other because they belong to the same ethnic, religious or cultural community. Meanwhile, in a civic nation, the people unite behind certain civic principles, like a commitment to democracy.

    Cartier’s concept of a political nationality was crucial to making sense of the political experiment that was Confederation. Having mostly abandoned their efforts to assimilate the French-Canadians, the British settlers in North America would now join with them to build a new national identity instead.

    Reshaping Canadian identity

    In his recent book, historian Raymond Blake explains how Canada’s post-Second World War prime ministers, through their speeches and public statements, reshaped Canada’s national identity.




    Read more:
    40 years later: A look back at the Pierre Trudeau speech that defined Canada


    Up through Louis St-Laurent, various prime ministers would refer to the “deux nations” origin of Canada as inspirational. British and French settlers had come together despite their differences to build a new society together, they pointed out.

    As time went on, it became clear this definition of Canada’s national identity wasn’t nearly inclusive enough, making no mention of Indigenous Peoples.

    The multicultural character of Canadian society was increasingly acknowledged by the government and Canadians at large until it was central to Canada’s identity. Canada’s national narrative has been reframed in recent years to recognize Indigenous Peoples as one of the three founding pillars of Canadian society. This evolution exemplifies exactly the change citizens should expect in a national community.

    This transformation in Canadian national identity shows that national communities can change over time — including, perhaps, in response to U.S. President Donald Trump’s threats against Canada.

    In the end, Canadians decide what sort of nation they want to inhabit. Canada’s political nationality has proven more resilient than even some of its founders might have anticipated, but not for lack of effort. There will always remain the work of building a better nation — and it’s work worth doing.

    Eric Wilkinson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Canada Day: How Canadian nationalism is evolving with the times — and will continue to do so – https://theconversation.com/canada-day-how-canadian-nationalism-is-evolving-with-the-times-and-will-continue-to-do-so-259352

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Japanese prime minister’s abrupt no-show at NATO summit reveals a strained alliance with the US

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Craig Mark, Adjunct Lecturer, Faculty of Economics, Hosei University

    Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba has sent a clear signal to the Trump administration: the Japan–US relationship is in a dire state.

    After saying just days ago he would be attending this week’s NATO summit at The Hague, Ishiba abruptly pulled out at the last minute.

    He joins two other leaders from the Indo-Pacific region, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and South Korean President Lee Jae-myung, in skipping the summit.

    The Japanese media reported Ishiba cancelled the trip because a bilateral meeting with US President Donald Trump was unlikely, as was a meeting of the Indo-Pacific Four (IP4) NATO partners (Australia, New Zealand, South Korea and Japan).

    Japan will still be represented by Foreign Minister Takeshi Iwaya, showing its desire to strengthen its security relationship with NATO.

    However, Ishiba’s no-show reveals how Japan views its relationship with the Trump administration, following the severe tariffs Washington imposed on Japan and Trump’s mixed messages on the countries’ decades-long military alliance.

    Tariffs and diplomatic disagreements

    Trump’s tariff policy is at the core of the divide between the US and Japan.

    Ishiba attempted to get relations with the Trump administration off to a good start. He was the second world leader to visit Trump at the White House, after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

    However, Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs imposed a punitive rate of 25% on Japanese cars and 24% on all other Japanese imports. They are already having an adverse impact on Japan’s economy: exports of automobiles to the US dropped in May by 25% compared to a year ago.

    Six rounds of negotiations have made little progress, as Ishiba’s government insists on full tariff exemptions.

    Japan has been under pressure from the Trump administration to increase its defence spending, as well. According to the Financial Times, Tokyo cancelled a summit between US and Japanese defence and foreign ministers over the demand. (A Japanese official denied the report.)

    Japan also did not offer its full support to the US bombings of Iran’s nuclear facilities earlier this week. The foreign minister instead said Japan “understands” the US’s determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

    Japan has traditionally had fairly good relations with Iran, often acting as an indirect bridge with the West. Former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe even made a visit there in 2019.

    Japan also remains heavily dependent on oil from the Middle East. It would have been adversely affected if the Strait of Hormuz had been blocked, as Iran was threatening to do.

    Unlike the response from the UK and Australia, which both supported the strikes, the Ishiba government prioritised its commitment to upholding international law and the rules-based global order. In doing so, Japan seeks to deny China, Russia and North Korea any leeway to similarly erode global norms on the use of force and territorial aggression.

    Strategic dilemma of the Japan–US military alliance

    In addition, Japan is facing the same dilemma as other American allies – how to manage relations with the “America first” Trump administration, which has made the US an unreliable ally.

    Earlier this year, Trump criticised the decades-old security alliance between the US and Japan, calling it “one-sided”.

    “If we’re ever attacked, they don’t have to do a thing to protect us,” he said of Japan.

    Lower-level security cooperation is ongoing between the two allies and their regional partners. The US, Japanese and Philippine Coast Guards conducted drills in Japanese waters this week. The US military may also assist with upgrading Japan’s counterstrike missile capabilities.

    But Japan is still likely to continue expanding its security ties with partners beyond the US, such as NATO, the European Union, India, the Philippines, Vietnam and other ASEAN members, while maintaining its fragile rapprochement with South Korea.

    Australia is now arguably Japan’s most reliable security partner. Canberra is considering buying Japan’s Mogami-class frigates for the Royal Australian Navy. And if the AUKUS agreement with the US and UK collapses, Japanese submarines could be a replacement.

    Ishiba under domestic political pressure

    There are also intensifying domestic political pressures on Ishiba to hold firm against Trump, who is deeply unpopular among the Japanese public.

    After replacing former prime minister Fumio Kishida as leader of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) last September, the party lost its majority in the lower house of parliament in snap elections. This made it dependent on minor parties for legislative support.

    Ishiba’s minority government has struggled ever since with poor opinion polling. There has been widespread discontent with inflation, the high cost of living and stagnant wages, the legacy of LDP political scandals, and ever-worsening geopolitical uncertainty.

    On Sunday, the party suffered its worst-ever result in elections for the Tokyo Metropolitan Assembly, winning its lowest number of seats.

    The party could face a similar drubbing in the election for half of the upper house of the Diet (Japan’s parliament) on July 20. Ishiba has pledged to maintain the LDP’s majority in the house with its junior coalition partner Komeito. But if the government falls into minority status in both houses, Ishiba will face heavy pressure to step down.

    Craig Mark does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Japanese prime minister’s abrupt no-show at NATO summit reveals a strained alliance with the US – https://theconversation.com/japanese-prime-ministers-abrupt-no-show-at-nato-summit-reveals-a-strained-alliance-with-the-us-259694

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Canada Day: Symbols take centre stage in debates about Canadian nationalism

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Paul Hamilton, Associate Professor of Political Science, Brock University

    The recent resurgence of Canadian nationalism is a response to explicit threats made by United States President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly expressed his desire to make Canada the 51st American state.

    Canadian flag sales have skyrocketed, informal and formal boycotts of American goods are continuing and Canadians are being urged to stay home and spend their vacation dollars domestically. Even in Québec, pro-Canadian sentiments are evident. Canadian nationalism is back.




    Read more:
    Is Trump’s assault on Canada bringing Québec and the rest of the country closer together?


    Yet only a decade ago, the newly elected Justin Trudeau labelled Canada the first “post-national nation” in an interview with The New York Times. In essence, the prime minister suggested, Canada was moving beyond nationalism to some new phase of social identity. Nationalism, like a step in the launch of a spacecraft, would be jettisoned now that it was a vestigial and outdated feature of Canadian society.

    As we argue in a recently presented paper to be published soon, Canadians are nowhere near either a homogeneous, popularly held identity, nor are they “beyond nationalism” as if it were an outdated hairstyle.

    Instead, Canadian steps toward a united, widely held nationalism continue to be stymied by both substantial constitutional issues (Québec, western alienation, Indigenous aspirations to self-determination) but also by battles over banal symbols of national identity. Canadians are, in the words of journalist Ian Brown, “a unity of contradictions.”

    The importance of symbols

    In his influential book, Banal Nationalism, British social science scholar Michael Billig highlighted the role of symbols like stamps, currency and flags to identify barely noticed transmitters of national consciousness.

    Writing in 1995, at a time of ethnic nationalist resurgence in the former Yugoslavia, Billig contrasted the understated, reserved nationalism of citizens of established states like Canada with the dangerous, passionate expressions of nationalism in the Balkans.

    This genteel nationalism is barely noticed much of the time, but proposals to alter national symbols arouse debate — like during the great Canadian flag debate of the mid-1960s — and expose deep emotional attachments. Canadians, too, are nationalists.

    But they’re also citizens of a liberal democracy where nationalistic narratives compete to define and unite the nation. Societies evolve and generational change can lead to new symbols reflecting changing values. The historical episodes of discontent pertaining to national symbols show how Canadian society has evolved since its drift away from Britain after the Second World War.

    During the flag debate, Liberal Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson said Canada needed a new flag that would present a united nation rather than a confusing amalgamation of different people. Conservative Leader John Diefenbaker, on the other hand, argued Canada should be “all Canadian and all British” during the debate, adding that any Canadian who disagreed should “be denounced.”

    The leaders could not agree, with Diefenbaker opting for something like the status quo and Pearson for a complete redesign that would represent all Canadians, regardless of national heritage. In a 1964 La Presse article on the debate, columnist Guy Cormier crudely voiced Québec’s concerns that Pearson’s handling of the flag debate was an attempt to “artificially inseminate” his agenda on the province. The Philadelphia Evening Bulletin reported on the debate, declaring that “tinkering with a nation’s flag is sort of like playing volleyball with a hornets nest.”

    Mountie symbolism

    As Canada became increasingly more multicultural in the 1980s, another symbol became the centre of controversy. A Sikh entering the RCMP wanted to be able to wear a turban instead of the traditional Stetson.

    Despite government and RCMP support, public opinion was mixed. Racist lapel pins were sold with the message “Keep the RCMP Canadian” as some argued the old uniform should remain and that new recruits should adapt to it.

    While few Canadians knew much about the design and history of the RCMP uniform, almost all Canadians consider it an iconic representation of Canada. Changes to it represent a threat to some, inclusion for others.

    Changes to the anthem, passport

    Changes to O Canada, the national anthem, have been proposed over the past decades. Recently, a more inclusive version was drafted, changing “in all thy sons command” to “all of us command.”

    Conservative MPs and some television pundits argued the change wasn’t necessary and the anthem doesn’t belong to a political party. Opponents argued that most people aren’t offended by the anthem’s lyrics, the anthem wasn’t broken and was not in need of fixing. Ultimately, the change was made, with great praise from some and vexation from others.

    Removing images of the late Terry Fox in 2023 from the Canadian passport, a document few think about until checking its expiry date before a vacation, caused significant uproar.

    Other images from Canadian history were also removed, but Fox’s removal was most notable since he was someone most Canadians consider the embodiment of a Canadian hero.

    The response to these changes ranged from mild — with those arguing that Canada needs more Terry Fox, not less, — to furious, as some accused Trudeau of being out of touch with Canadians and a “fault finder-in-chief.”

    Far from trivial, these arguments over national symbols reveal how deeply some Canadians are attached to them. The nature of Canadian identity and nationalism will continue to be dated and contested. In that respect, Canadians are no different than the citizens of any other country.

    The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Canada Day: Symbols take centre stage in debates about Canadian nationalism – https://theconversation.com/canada-day-symbols-take-centre-stage-in-debates-about-canadian-nationalism-259847

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Trump’s f-bomb: a psychologist explains why the president makes fast and furious statements

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Geoff Beattie, Professor of Psychology, Edge Hill University

    Donald Trump’s latest forthright outburst was made as part of his attempts to create a peace deal with Iran and Israel. “I’m not happy with Israel,” he told reporters on June 24. “We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don’t know what the fuck they’re doing.”

    This came a day after Trump had announced a ceasefire between Israel and Iran. By the next day, the ceasefire had been violated by both Iran and Israel. Trump was clearly furious, and his language showed it.

    This was not a verbal slip – there was no immediate correction, no apology, no nonverbal indication of embarrassment. He just stormed off, clearly angry.

    This is not the kind of language that is normally associated with a president. Some have been reported to use the f-word before, but usually behind closed doors.

    Donald Trump uses the f-word in a press conference.

    We expect presidents to be calm, measured, thoughtful, considered. Trump’s comment was none of these things. Theodore Roosevelt, the 26th US president, once recommended a foreign policy strategy that was based on speaking softly and carrying a big stick. He was suggesting quiet menace, but Trump showed frustration, barely contained. His furious, aggressive response was like something straight out of an old psychology textbook.

    In the 1930s, psychologists developed the frustration-aggression hypothesis to explain how aggressive behaviour can arise. The hypothesis suggested that when a person’s goal is blocked in some way, it leads to frustration, which then results in aggression. Aggression was considered a “natural” way of releasing this unpleasant state of frustration. They were clearly different times.

    Over the next few decades, this hypothesis was thought by most psychologists to be a gross oversimplification of complex human behaviour. It assumed a direct causal relationship between frustration and aggression, ignoring all the other situational and cognitive factors that can intervene.

    Human beings are more complex than that, psychologists argued — they find other ways of dealing with their frustrations. They use their rational system of thought to find solutions. They don’t have to lash out when they’re frustrated in this seemingly primitive way.

    Perhaps, that’s why many people feel shocked when they watch this US president in certain situations. To many of us, it all seems so basic, so unsophisticated, so frightening.

    Fast v slow thinking

    The Nobel laureate and psychologist Daniel Kahneman, in his book Thinking, Fast and Slow (2011), characterised the two systems that underpin everyday decision-making. His work may help with understanding of what’s going on here.

    He describes system one as the evolutionary, basic system. It operates unconsciously, automatically and very quickly, handling everyday tasks like reading other people’s emotions, without any effort. It is an intuitive system designed to work in a world full of approach and avoidance, scary animals and friendly animals. It is heavily reliant on affect to guide decision-making.

    In contrast, system two is slower, more deliberative. It requires conscious effort and is used for complex thinking, solving difficult problems, or making careful decisions.

    The relationship between the two systems is critical, and that may get us thinking about Trump in more detail.


    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.


    Kahneman says that system one is a bit of a “workaholic”, beavering away all the time, making “suggestions” for system two to endorse. Good decisions – depend upon system two checking the suggestions of system one. But system one often jumps quickly and unconsciously to certain conclusions. System two should check them, but often doesn’t, even when it would be easy.

    Here is a well-known example. Answer the following question: “A bat and ball cost one pound ten pence, the bat costs one pound more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?”

    One answer looks blatantly obvious – but it isn’t correct. The correct answer (after a bit of thought) is five pence.

    About 80% of university students give the very quick and incorrect answer of ten pence because it “looks” right. Their system two never checked.

    In many people, it seems system two is not used nearly enough. There are striking individual differences in the way that people rely on emotion and gut instinct versus the rational system in making decisions.

    Emotional decisions?

    It appears that Trump makes decisions very quickly (classic system one), often without extensive deliberation or consultation with advisers. Both in his presidency and in his business career, he seemed to prioritise immediate action over any sort of prolonged and thoughtful analysis. That’s why he changes his mind so often.

    His decisions seem to be driven by strong emotions. His response to events, opponents and issues are often passionate and visceral. This could lead to to decisions being unduly influenced by personal feelings, first impressions based on arbitrary cues, and interpersonal perceptions, rather than anything more substantial.

    Trump’s style of decision-making emphasises immediacy and emotional conviction, which can be effective in rallying supporters and creating a sense of decisiveness. However, it also can lead to unpredictable outcomes and, as has been seen again and again, somewhat controversial, impulsive actions.

    Many suggest that Trump’s decision-making style reflects his background in the high-pressure and high-stakes world of business, where quick judgements and gut instinct can be advantageous in these sorts of competitive winner-takes-all environments

    But the world at war is a more precarious place, where system one needs to be kept more firmly in check. Gut instincts may have a role to play, but that old lazy system two needs to be more vigilant. Especially, it would seem, in Trump’s case.


    This article features references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org The Conversation UK may earn a commission.

    Geoff Beattie does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Trump’s f-bomb: a psychologist explains why the president makes fast and furious statements – https://theconversation.com/trumps-f-bomb-a-psychologist-explains-why-the-president-makes-fast-and-furious-statements-259735

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI USA: Representatives Norma Torres and Brad Schneider Reintroduce the Multiple Firearm Sales Reporting Modernization Act

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Norma Torres (35th District of California)

    June 30, 2025

    Washington, D.C. – Today, Representatives Norma J. Torres (CA-35) and Brad Schneider (IL-10) reintroduced the Multiple Firearm Sales Reporting Modernization Act, legislation aimed at curbing illegal gun trafficking and reducing gun violence. The bill would require federally licensed firearms dealers to report the sale of two or more long guns—such as AR-15s or AK-47s—to the same individual within a five-day period.

    In 2022, law enforcement officials reported that the shooter from the Uvalde school shooting– which claimed the lives of 19 children and 2 teachers– purchased two AR platform rifles within a three-day period from a federally authorized dealer. In the United States, firearms are the leading cause of death for children and teens. Every year, 22,000 children and teens are shot and killed or wounded, and approximately 3 million are exposed to gun violence. In 2024 alone, there were  503 mass shootings, resulting in more than 16,725 deaths and 31,646 injuries. 

    “Just this month, I sat with young students in my district— who should be thinking about school, friends, and their futures—but instead, are advocating for a call to action against gun violence,” said Congresswoman Norma Torres. “Their voices, stories and their courage stay with me every day. This bill is a commonsense step to prevent firearms from falling into the wrong hands. Gun violence is now the leading cause of death for children in America. That is a heartbreaking and unacceptable reality. Yet, Republicans in Congress continue to block meaningful reforms, and the Trump Administration is making it easier for dangerous individuals to access deadly weapons. I refuse to stand by as our communities suffer and families are torn apart. I’ll keep fighting with everything I have to close deadly loopholes, strengthen background checks, and finally ban assault weapons.”

    Mass shootings do not have to be inevitable—commonsense policies like requiring a report on the sale of two or more long guns in a 5-day period will help prevent tragedies and save lives,” said Rep. Schneider. “I’m proud to join Rep. Torres to introduce this bill and help address our senseless epidemic of mass shootings.”

    The Multiple Firearm Sales Reporting Modernization Act is supported by numerous gun safety and public interest organizations, including: March for Our Lives, Brady: United Against Gun Violence, GIFFORDS, Everytown for Gun Safety, National Education Association, and Amnesty International. 

    “There’s nothing unpredictable about gun violence in this country. When assault-style rifles are bought in bulk with no oversight, tragedy is often just days away. Young people have been sounding the alarm, and this bill answers that call with real, preventative action. The Multiple Firearm Sales Reporting Modernization Act is common sense. We thank Reps. Torres and Schneider for stepping up, and we condemn anyone who stands in the way. A vote against this bill isn’t about gun rights. It’s a choice to look away while innocent people are murdered.” Jackie Corin, Executive Director of March For Our Lives

    “When individuals purchase multiple firearms in quick succession, it is often a sign of tragedy to come. Bulk firearms purchases are a strong indicator of gun trafficking or that guns will be used in criminal activity. It is essential that we require licensed gun dealers to report sales of multiple firearms, not just handguns, so we can better identify potential gun trafficking and cut off the supply of firearms that fuel transnational cartels and violence in our communities. Brady applauds Congresswoman Torres for introducing the Multiple Firearm Sales Reporting Modernization Act and for her continued commitment to freeing America from gun violence.” Mark Collins, Director of Federal Policy, Brady: United Against Gun Violence

    “Requiring gun dealers to report bulk purchases of long guns is a commonsense step to help prevent gun trafficking and mass shootings. In many instances, individuals intent on causing harm have purchased multiple firearms within days of committing an attack. This bill provides law enforcement with a critical tool to identify patterns of suspicious activity and intervene before tragedy strikes. We applaud Congresswoman Torres for her leadership in modernizing how we detect and respond to potential threats.”  Vanessa Gonzalez, Vice President of Government & Political Affairs at GIFFORDS

    One of the most glaring red flags for a mass shooting is someone stockpiling semi-automatic weapons in a matter of days — but too often, this flag goes unnoticed,” said John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety. “We applaud Congresswoman Torres for introducing common-sense legislation to require gun dealers to speak up when they notice a seller stocking up on weapons of war.”

    Currently, a federal firearms licensee (e.g., a gun dealer) must report multiple sales or dispositions of pistols or revolvers to the same person within five business days- however, this requirement excludes reporting requirements for long guns, which include assault style rifles and shotguns. The Multiple Firearm Sales Reporting Modernization Act changes the requirement so federal firearms licensees must report multiple sales or dispositions of all firearms to the same person within five business days.

    Bill text

    The legislation is also cosponsored by Representatives: Barragán (CA-44), Cleaver (MO-5), DeGette (CO-01), Foushee (NC-04), García (IL-04), Goldman (NY-10), Johnson (GA-04), Krishnamoorthi (IL-08), Lynch (MA-08), Neguse (CO-02), Norton (DC), Peters (CA-50), Pettersen (CO-07), Scanlon (PA-05), Schakowsky (IL-09), Smith (WA-09), Stansbury (NM-01), Swalwell (CA-14), Torres (NY-15), Vargas (CA-52), Velázquez (NY-07). 

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Schatz: Republicans Are Ripping People Off, Plunging Country Into Energy Crisis To Cut Taxes For Billionaires

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Hawaii Brian Schatz

    WASHINGTON – During a debate on the Republican tax bill, U.S. Senator Brian Schatz (D-Hawai‘i) condemned the bill’s provisions to gut clean energy which will raise people’s energy bills by more than a hundred dollars starting next year and make blackouts and power outages more common across the country.

    “This is the worst piece of legislation for the planet in the history of our country, and it’s not even close. Republicans are effectively codifying Big Oil’s wish list into law, without exception. They are killing clean energy. They are subsidizing coal. They are dramatically expanding oil and gas leasing. They’re purposely jacking up energy prices and creating shortages and creating shortages,” said Senator Schatz. “And for what? It’s to find enough savings to shovel tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars into the pockets of individual billionaires.”

    Senator Schatz continued, “This bill will kill 300,000 jobs in wind and solar per year. We’re going to lose out on $450 billion in capital as thousands of projects go under. And because of that, we’re going to generate about 500GW less energy in the next decade. We are going to have energy shortages as a result of this legislation.”

    A transcript of Senator Schatz’s remarks is below. Video is available here.

    There are a lot of people in this chamber and across the country who, on a non-ideological basis, want a consistent tax code so that businesses can invest with certainty and predictability. So let’s look at some of the numbers here in terms of the impact of this bill. This bill will kill 300,000 jobs in wind and solar per year. We’re going to lose out on $450 billion in capital as thousands of projects go under. And because of that, we’re going to generate about 500GW less energy in the next decade.

    Now, there was a time, and I lived through it as a politician, there was a time when people who wanted to take climate action had to argue for that climate action because it is a planetary emergency and there were tradeoffs. And people on the other side said, “look, as we try to take action to deal with this planetary crisis, we can’t create shortages, we can’t increase prices, we can’t impede economic progress.” All that has flipped.

    This bill will create shortages. This bill will impede economic progress. This bill will increase prices. The 500GW less energy in the next decade is pretty much exactly the amount of energy that we’re going to need to meet rising demand. We are going to have energy shortages as a result of this legislation.

    And you don’t have to love clean energy or be an environmentalist. And I love clean energy, and I’m an environmentalist. But you don’t have to care about the climate. I think you should. You don’t have to care about the climate to understand that this is a basic question of supply and demand. Energy demand is soaring for the first time in decades, largely not exclusively, but largely because of AI data centers. And our best chance of meeting it in the next few years is with wind and solar, not oil and gas, even nuclear and geothermal are going to take a while.

    That is not just a political talking point or a preference of mine. It’s just a fact that gas turbines are stuck in a years-long backlog. It’s also a fact that 80 percent of the new capacity on the grid last year came from solar and storage. It’s growing, it’s cheap, it works. And there are hundreds more projects that are in the pipeline waiting to be hooked up.

    So the idea that we’re going to kill the only energy that can be brought online in the short run, the very same week that half the country was meeting, melting in a record heat wave which left tens of thousands without power is beyond absurd.

    Let’s talk about how this bill does all of this damage. Specifically, it creates an impossible deadline for projects to be operational in order to claim the clean energy tax credits. Remember, these clean energy tax cuts are federal law. They’re on the books. So when you have a federal statute, it is not unreasonable as an investor to say, look, I got this tax credit. I’m going to get X number, X percent back for my initial investment. And you do the pro forma, you do the underwriting. And you figure out that the thing pencils out. And now what they’re saying is that you got to be operational in 60 days. If anyone has even built a deck in their front yard or tried to do an extension – nothing gets built in 60 days. Certainly not a clean energy project, and it has to be placed in service. What does placed in service mean? It means not only do you have to have the thing built, you have to have a power purchase agreement through your public service commission or public utilities commission. You have to have a deal in place in the next 60 days after enactment, or you get nothing.

    So imagine you’re a company investing in a solar battery storage project. You’ve already put money down, you’ve secured land and a power purchase agreement, and you’re working on permits. And when you started the project, the tax code said you could claim a credit to cover the upfront costs. Now, unless you are fully operational, you’re out of luck. On average, a project takes four years to go through the full process. So even if you’ve already started that progress, you now have very, very little time to get it done. We are going to strand hundreds of billions of dollars in capital. And so the impact on price is going to be crazy. The impact on jobs is going to be crazy. But the impact on America as an investable proposition is the most dangerous part of this. I don’t know that we’ve ever, through federal law, made a big subsidy, made a big bet on a certain industry. And then halfway through that process, said, never mind. We didn’t mean that. You’re stuck.

    According to the Edison Electric Institute. And by the way, I can guarantee you this is the first and maybe last time I will ever, ever quote the Edison Electric Institute. That’ll cost people, not companies, people, ratepayers $60 billion in this decade alone. Your electric bills are about to go up. A representative of a solar company in Hawaii put it this way. It is really unclear in the current version of the bill what the renewable energy industry even looks like, if it were passed today.

    An owner of a solar company in Montana, worried that the credits disappearing would force them to lay off half of his workers. He says, “Montana is deeply red, but it’s also a very practical place. And so green energy renewables became a taboo phrase somehow. The practical energy needs are undeniable, so we can get past our disagreements and about phraseology. We realize that electrons, watts, amps, it’s all cheaper.” A representative of a wind turbine company in Colorado said, “I don’t look at what we do as green or blue or red. An electron doesn’t have a color.” And that’s the point. Electrons don’t have color. Wanting cheap, abundant energy is not woke. Wanting a livable planet for today and for future generations is not radical and wanting reliable power and to avoid blackouts and brownouts is not a leftist project. But even if you set all of that aside for a minute, the states that have benefited the most from these investments are Republican states.

    According to estimates, nearly three quarters of clean energy manufacturing facilities are located in Republican states. It means that Republicans are going to pay more for energy. It means Republicans will lose jobs in clean energy because of a Republican bill. It means Republicans are going to have more blackouts in their homes and businesses. Gutting clean energy is not somehow owning the libs, and at least some Republicans in the Senate and House understand that even if their votes have not manifested to say otherwise.

    Here’s a letter from 21 House Republicans earlier this year, “As our conference has long believed, and all of the above energy approach combined with a robust, advanced manufacturing sector will help support the United States position as a global energy leader. Countless American companies are utilizing sector wide energy tax credits, many of which have enjoyed broad support in Congress to make major investments in domestic energy production and infrastructure for traditional and renewable sources alike.” And it goes on, “As energy demand continues to skyrocket. Any modifications that inhibit our ability to deploy new energy production risks sparking an energy crisis risks sparking an energy crisis.” 21 House Republicans are worried about an energy crisis imposed by the Republican Congress. It goes on. “This is especially true for energy credits with direct pass through benefit to ratepayers, where such repeals would increase utility bills the very next day – would increase utility bills the very next day.”

    This is not me, progressive Senator from the state of Hawai‘i, who has made a career out of fighting climate change. This is 21 House Republicans saying, like, “we’re going to create a crisis here. Maybe we shouldn’t pass this thing. A lot of this stuff benefits us. If we’re all out here talking about all of the above. Why are we cutting off our nose to spite our face?” Just because someone wants a talking point? People are literally going to lose their jobs immediately upon enactment. America is going to become a very challenging place to make major investments in, immediately upon enactment. The AI industry may move abroad immediately upon enactment, and prices will go up pretty much right away as well.

    A group of 175 mayors and local leaders wrote, “For the first time, state and local governments, as well as essential nonprofit community organizations such as houses of worship, hospitals and schools, can access the same clean energy tax credits as the private sector through elective pay. This has led to major projects in our communities, like solar installations for town halls, alternative fueling infrastructure, and charging stations for local government fleets. After one year of direct pay implementation, over 1200 organizations, including 500 state and local governments are already accessing these incentives. We are excited about these projects and the benefits that they will bring to our communities. However, as local leaders, we are concerned that repealing these tax credits would create economic uncertainty in our communities as it would prevent us from accessing those important benefits.”

    You know, I grew up to understand Republicans were for avoiding unintended consequences. Republicans were against radical change too quickly. Republicans wanted a solid business environment that people could rely upon. This is literally none of that. This is ideology manifesting itself as energy policy. And what’s going to happen is people are going to lose their jobs and pay tons more for electricity.

    The building trades unions called this bill “the biggest job killing bill in the history of this country.”  And they go on. “Simply put, it is the equivalent of terminating more than 1000 Keystone XL pipeline projects.” I’ve been here for a while. Keystone XL was a big deal to our friends in labor. I had some very tough conversations with my friends and labor about how important that project was to them, and how it was in tension with some of our climate goals.

    But listen to what they say. It is the equivalent of terminating 1,000 Keystone XL pipeline projects. These guys are not me or Jeff Merkley or Eddie Markey, or Sheldon Whitehouse, or Martin Heinrich, or Rep Ocasio-Cortez, or any climate advocate. This is the building trades, and they’re saying this is the biggest job killer, perhaps, perhaps in American history. We actually don’t have to do this.

    The impetus behind this bill was essentially border spending and preventing the Trump tax cuts from expiring. And then a bunch of stuff got added on because that’s what happens. And we were there for our own version of this, our own BBB, our own Build Back Better. And everybody in your party piles on with something new. And then the thing becomes a really challenging thing to pass, because everybody’s got their hobbyhorse and somebody’s hobbyhorse is not just to have an all of the above energy strategy, but to go out of your way to kill clean energy.  It doesn’t matter that it’s going to raise prices. It doesn’t matter that it’s going to kill jobs.

    People at all levels, in the public and private sectors across the political spectrum are all saying the same thing, which is this is a bad bill for regular people, for the economy and for the planet. One of the great things about our climate Bill was that it made what was good for the planet also good for the economy. Clean energy become became eminently profitable for businesses and widely accessible to consumers. And we made a choice there because some in our party didn’t like the basic premise. They were attached to the idea of personal political, economic sacrifice because the planet is in peril.

    And I understand that instinct. I understand that instinct. But we’ve paved a new path, and we decided, look, there’s enough technology out there. There are abundant energy sources out there that we can actually solve our planetary crisis and create jobs and lower prices, and we can do it in such a way that blue states and red states, urban rural, suburban all benefit. Republicans are on the verge of undoing all of that, even though it will hurt their constituents. And in doing so, we’re virtually guaranteeing China’s dominance in clean energy for decades to come. Because if you’re a China, you cannot believe your luck. Your biggest competitor is willingly forfeiting the fight over who controls the energy technologies of the future because Donald Trump is too busy trying to get us back to the pre-industrial age.

    This is the worst piece of legislation for the planet in the history of our country, and it’s not even close. Republicans are effectively codifying Big Oil’s wish list into law, without exception. They are killing clean energy. They are subsidizing coal. They are dramatically expanding oil and gas leasing. They’re purposely jacking up energy prices and creating shortages and creating shortages. And for what? Partially, it’s to find enough savings to shovel tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars into the pockets of individual billionaires. But even kicking more than 16 million people off of health care coverage, denying food to the poor, and adding almost $5 trillion to the national debt was not enough.

    People voted for Donald Trump for all sorts of reasons, but no one voted for higher energy bills. No one voted for more frequent blackouts and brownouts and dirtier air and water. No one, whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican or independent, wants that. I want to be clear this fight is far from over. This fight over this bill is far from over.

    But even if this bill passes, it will set us back. But the fight for the planet is bigger than any one bill or vote, and that includes the big climate bill that we passed in the previous administration. And as any movement that has successfully mobilized and made changes knows, progress is not linear. Progress always has setbacks and frustrations, and progress is not assured.

    States like Hawai‘i will continue to do everything that they can to protect our environment, and the rest of the world will move on without us, because doing nothing in the face of this worsening crisis is simply not an option. But make no mistake, what Congress is doing today will cost all of us in the years and decades to come.

    MIL OSI USA News